anchor.diff:  1.2,FALSE,1,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-1.pdf,6,"By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions.",1.2.2,"Postotak muškaraca, žena i djece svih dobnih skupina koji žive u siromaštvu u svim svojim dimenzijama prema nacionalnim definicijama siromaštva",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
   1.3,FALSE,1,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-1.pdf,7,"Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable.",1.3.1,"Udio populacije obuhvaćenih sustavima minimalnih prava / sustavima socijalne zaštite, prema spolu, uz razlikovanje djece, nezaposlenih osoba, starijih osoba, osoba s invaliditetom, trudnica, novorođenčadi, žrtava ozljeda na radu te siromašnih i ranjivih",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
   1.4,FALSE,1,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-1.pdf,8,"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.",1.4.1,Postotak populacije koja živi u kućanstivma koja imaju pristup osnovnim uslugama,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  -1.4,TRUE,1,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-1.pdf,8,"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.",1.4.2,"Proportion of total adult population with secure tenure rights to land, with legally recognized documentation and who perceive their rights to land as secure, by sex and by type of tenure",UN-HABITAT,,"Land Tenure\n Land tenure can be described as a bundle of rights that individuals and communities have with regard to land, which may include the rights to occupy, to use, to develop, to inherit, and to transfer land. Some of these rights will be held by individuals, some by groups, and others by political entities. This bundle of rights can be broken up, rearranged and passed on to others. The following is the typology:\n Secure tenure rights or tenure security\n Tenure security is the right of individuals and groups to effective protection by the state against evictions, i.e. under international law, ""the permanent or temporary removal against their will of individuals, families and/communities from the home and/or the land they occupy, without the provision of, and access to, appropriate form of legal or other protection"". Security of tenure can then be defined as ""an agreement between an individual or group about land and residential property, which is governed and regulated by a legal and administrative framework. A person or household can be said to have secure tenure when they are protected from involuntary removal from their land or residence by the state, except in exceptional circumstances, and then only by means of a known and agreed legal procedure, which must itself be objective, equally applicable, contestable and independent.""\n Perceived tenure security refers to an individual's experience of his/her tenure situation or their estimated probability that their land rights will not be lost as a result of eviction by the state, land owner or other authority, or because of other factors that may cause involuntary relocation or curtail their use of the land, such as threats of land conflicts.\n Characterizing tenure status is based on four sets of interrelated parameters:\n \t1. Primary tenure rights on land\n \t2. Land tenure (rights of occupants on the land)\n \t3. Occupancy status (of the dwelling unit)\n \t4. Type of development\n Legal tenure security refers to the legal status of tenure and its protection backed up by state authority. De facto tenure security is based on the actual control of property, regardless of the legal status in which it is held. It can best be defined by the elements that compose it or contribute to it, such as the length of time of occupation, its socially accepted legitimacy and the level and cohesion of community organization.\n UNFAO (2003) defines Communally held land is where rights to use resources are held by a community. It refers to situations where rights to use resources are held and controlled by a community. While these rights may include communal rights to pastures and forests, they may also include exclusive private rights to agricultural land and residential plots.\n Local Communities\n A group of individuals belonging to the same community residing within or in the same vicinity of a particular parcel, property or natural resource. The community members are co-owners that share exclusive rights and duties, and benefits contribute to the community development.\n Indigenous land rights\n Indigenous land rights are rights specific to a particular ethnic group, having evolved through interaction of culture and environment and overseen by authorities whose legitimacy is based on occupation and spiritual ties to the locality.\n Community land rights\n Community land rights are collective rights of land ownership, access or use held or exercised in common by members of a community. A community may be designated as a village-based or more geographically dispersed community, or a clan or a lineage.\n Collective rights\n A situation where holders of land rights are clearly defined as a group and have the right to exclude others from the enjoyment of those land rights. Collective ownership of a natural resource refers to a situation where the holders of rights to a given natural resource are clearly defined as a collective group, and where they have the right to exclude third parties from the enjoyment of those rights.\n Common property\n Common property refers to situations in which entitled beneficiaries hold specified rights in common to specific areas of land, land-based natural resources or other types of property.\n Property / private property\n Property signifies dominion or right of use, control and disposition, which one may lawfully exercise over things, objects or land.\n Property rights\n Property rights refer to ""a bundle of rights to use, control, and transfer assets, including land. These include the rights to occupy, enjoy and use; to restrict others from entry or use; to dispose, buy or inherit; to develop or improve; to cultivate; to sublet; to realize financial benefits; and to access services in association with land.\n Open access resources\n Resources ' including land ' to which everyone has unrestricted access and that are not considered to be the property of anyone.\n Ecosystem services:\n Ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems. These include provisioning, regulating, and cultural services that directly affect people and supporting services needed to maintain the other services.\n Natural resources:\n The term 'natural resources' refers to oil, minerals, forests, water, and fertile land that occur in nature and can be exploited for economic gain.","Percentage of women and men with secure tenure rights to individually or communally held land, property and natural resources. Method 1 : (The number of people ( women and men) with documented evidence of secure tenure rights to individually or communally held land, property and natural resources divided by the total number of adult population surveyed) x 100.\n Method 2 : (The number of households or local communities with documented evidence of secure tenure rights to individually or communally held land, property and natural resources divided by the total number of households or communities surveyed) x 100.",,,,,,,,"There are four data sources that are complementary: Data can be computed from (i) administrative data from national land agencies, (ii) global or regional opinion polls will provide data on perceptions and (iii) Household Surveys. (iv)The Land Mark tool will provide information for Indigenous peoples",Proportion of households with documented rights to land\n Proportion of households who perceive their rights to land are secure\n Proportion of households with legally documented rights to land\n Proportion of women with legally documented rights to land\n Proportion of women who perceive their rights to land are secure\n P7:S9 of men with legally documented rights to land\n Proportion of men who perceive their rights are secure\n Proportion of local communities with legally documented rights to land\n Proportion of local communities who perceive their rights to land are secure\n Proportion of indigenous peoples with legally documented rights to land\n Proportion of indigenous peoples who perceive their rights are secure,The monitoring of the indicator can be repeated at regular intervals of 3 - 5 years.,"This indicator can be disaggregated spatially (inc. urban/rural) and by the age and sex, socio-economic profiles, and groups of people/communities (indigenous, local communities).",,"Considering that secure tenure over land and natural resources is an essential driver for change towards sustainability, it is imperative that Goals 1, 2, and 5, which have explicit reference to ownership, land and other resources, include indicators to measure this driver of change. A coalition of institutions, including experts from UNEP, UN-Habitat and IFAD, have offered language and meta data, although recognizing that baselines are currently not available for some of the indicators. Nevertheless, such indicators should be in the SDG package so that more research and development can be spurred on and make the SDGs relevant to people's lives.\n Security of Tenure Although the methodology is now developed for Household surveys, this is not yet tested.\n The Administrative data although available in all countries, it is still paper based in most of the developing countries. Data quality will therefore be improved over time as computerization increasingly takes route.",,Globally comparable. Can be reported by all countries.,,"Food and Agriculture Organization (2012). Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2801e/i2801e.pdf \n\tFood and Agriculture Organization (2004). Land Reform, Land Settlement and Cooperatives. Ref: FAO Corporate Documents Repository. Indigenous Peoples' rights to lands, territories and resources: selected international and domestic legal considerations. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5407t/y5407t0g.htm \n\tFood and Agriculture Organization (2003). Multilingual Thesaurus of Land Tenure, English Version. Rome: FAO. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/x2038e/x2038e00.htm \n\tUN-Habitat, Global Land Tool Network (2008). Secure land rights for all. Nairobi. Available at: http://unhabitat.org/books/secure-land-rights-for-all/ \n\tUN-Habitat (2006). Setting up a Global Monitoring System on Secure Tenure. Nairobi. \n\tUN-Habitat (2014)Options For Global Reporting On GLTN/GLII Land Indicators In The Context Of The Sustainable Development Goals \n\tMillennium Ecoystem Assessment (2005): Ecosystems and Human Well-being. Synthesis. A Report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Available at: http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf \n\tUN DPA and UNEP (2015), Natural Resources and Conflict. A guide for Mediation Practitioners URL References:",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  -1.5,TRUE,1,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-1.pdf,12,"By 2030, build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other economic, social and environmental shocks and disasters.",1.5.1,"Number of deaths, missing persons and directly affected persons attributed to disasters per 100,000 population",UNISDR,,"From UNISDR:\n Definition:\n Death: The number of people who died during the disaster, or directly after, as a direct result of the hazardous event.\n Missing:\n The number of people whose whereabouts is unknown since the hazardous event. It includes people who are presumed dead although there is no physical evidence. The data on number of deaths and number of missing are mutually exclusive.\n Affected people:\n People who are affected by a hazardous event.\n Comment:\n People can be affected directly or indirectly. Affected people may experience short-term or long-term consequences to their lives, livelihoods or health and in the economic, physical, social, cultural and environmental assets.\n Directly affected:\n People who have suffered injury, illness or other health effects; who were evacuated, displaced, relocated; or have suffered direct damage to their livelihoods, economic, physical, social, cultural and environmental assets.\n Indirectly affected:\n People who have suffered consequences, other than or in addition to direct effects, over time due to disruption or changes in economy, critical infrastructures, basic services, commerce, work or social, health and physiological consequences.\n In this indicator, given the difficulties in assessing the full range of all affected (directly and indirectly), UNISDR proposes the use of an indicator that would estimate ""directly affected"" as a proxy for the number of affected. This indicator, while not perfect, comes from data widely available and could be used consistently across countries and over time to measure the achievement of the Target B.\n From the perspective of data availability and measurability, it is proposed to build a composite indicator which consists of ""directly affected"", or those who are \n\tInjured or ill, \n\tEvacuated, \n\tRelocated \nand to measure the number who suffered direct damage to their livelihoods or assets, \n\tPeople whose houses were damaged or destroyed \n\tPeople who received food relief aid.\n Injured or ill:\n The number of people suffering from physical injuries, trauma or cases of disease requiring immediate medical assistance as a direct result of a hazardous event.\n Evacuated:\n The number of people who temporarily moved from where they were (including their place of residence, work places, schools and hospitals) to safer locations in order to ensure their safety.\n Relocated:\n The number of people who moved permanently from their homes to new sites due to hazardous event. Note: This definition excludes preventive relocation before the event.\n People whose houses were damaged or destroyed due to hazardous events:\n The estimated number of inhabitants previously living in the houses (housing units) damaged or destroyed. All the inhabitants of these houses (housing units) are assumed to be affected being in their dwelling or by direct consequence of the destruction/damage to their housings (housing units). An average number of inhabitants per house (housing unit) in the country can be used to estimate the value.\n Houses destroyed:\n Houses (housing units) levelled, buried, collapsed, washed away or damaged to the extent that they are no longer habitable.\n Houses damaged:\n Houses (housing units) with minor damage, not structural or architectural, which may continue to be habitable, although they may require some repair or cleaning.\n People who received food relief aid:\n The number of persons who received food /nutrition, by government or as humanitarian aid, during or in the aftermath of a hazardous event.\n Hazardous event:\n The occurrence of a natural or human-induced phenomenon in a particular place during a particular period of time due to the existence of a hazard.\n Hazard:\n A potentially damaging physical event, phenomenon or human activity that may cause the loss of life or injury, property damage, social and economic disruption or environmental degradation.\n UNISDR recommends setting NO threshold for recording hazardous event in order to monitor all hazardous events. Small-scale but frequent hazardous events that are not registered in international disaster loss databases account for an important share of damages and losses when they are combined, and often go unnoticed by the national and international community. These events, when accumulated, are often a source of poverty in developing countries but can be effectively addressed by well-designed policies. The scope of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 is ""the risk of small-scale and large-scale, frequent and infrequent, sudden and slow-onset disasters, caused by natural or man-made hazards as well as relate environmental, technological and biological hazards and risks"".\n Regarding the inclusion of biological and environmental hazards in natural hazards category and whether and how to integrate man-made hazards, UNISDR will discuss the issue with WHO and other organizations (for example, WHO would be in a better position in terms of data, knowledge and relationship with Member States and other stakeholders to monitor biological events including epidemics. However, we generally do not expect biological disasters will cause physical damages to facilities.).\n Note: Terminology will be discussed and finalized in the Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group for Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction.","Summation of data on related indicators from national disaster loss databases. Make the sum a relative figure by using global population data (World Bank or UN Statistics information). Relativity is important because population growth (expected to be 9 billion in 2050) may translate into increased hazard exposure of population.\n The Expert Group recommends not using the indicators related with the people whose houses were damaged/destroyed in the computation. UNISDR and IRDR groups recommend using them as they can be estimated from widely available and verifiable data and reflect vulnerability and livelihood issues. Data on housing damage and destroyed is essential for economic loss, so using these indicators would not impose additional data collection burden.\n Double-counting: From practical perspective, double counting of affected people is unavoidable (for example, injured and relocated) in many countries. Minimum double counting is summing 'number of injured' and Number of people whose housings were damaged or destroyed. Relocated is sub-set of number of people whose housings were destroyed.\n The data can be disaggregated by hazard type. When applied to proposed target 13.1 and 15.3, hydrological, meteorological and climatological and indirectly biological disasters are monitored.","Cities around the world, as well as rural populations, witness growing disaster risks. Impacts of climate change on sustainable development are observed through both slow-onset events (e.g. sea level rise, increasing temperatures, ocean acidification, glacial retreat and related impacts, salinization, land and forest degradation, loss of biodiversity and desertification) and extreme weather events. Human loss can be measured by the number of deaths, missing, injured or ill, evacuated, relocated, people whose houses were damaged/destroyed and people who received food relief aid as a direct result of the hazardous events.\n Cities are some of the most vulnerable areas to natural disasters. Unplanned urban development (e.g. informal settlements, overcrowding, inadequate infrastructures) exacerbates urban vulnerability to climate change impacts and hydro-meteorological and geological hazards. Over half of all coastal areas are urbanized and 21 of the world's 33 mega cities lie in coastal flood zones. SIDS and coastal regions are particularly affected by sea level rise, coastal flooding and erosion, and extreme events (e.g. tsunamis and storm surges) due to undermining natural protective barriers, low levels of development combined with rapid population growth in low lying coastal areas and inadequate capacity to adapt. Poor urban populations must often resort to unsustainable coping strategies and mechanisms. \nLarge numbers of people remain perilously close to falling into poverty, experiencing shocks that they are unable to cope with. For the poor, a shock of even a relatively short duration can have long term consequences. Several dimensions of poverty are closely related to environment, which is often affected by natural disasters. The poverty reduction agenda could include well-designed social protection scheme to help protecting the poor against sudden shocks and the development of capacities to better predict and prepare for such shocks. Better management of natural resources can themselves strengthen the resilience of the poor, by both reducing the likelihood of natural hazardous events and offering resources to help cope with them.\n Biodiversity provides ecosystem resilience and contributes to the ability to respond to unpredictable global changes and natural disasters. Healthy ecosystems act as buffers against natural hazards, providing valuable yet underutilized approaches for climate change adaptation, enhancing natural resilience and reducing the vulnerability of people, for example to floods and the effects of land degradation. These ecosystem services improve the sustainability and economic efficiency of built infrastructure, and are critical for sustainable and resilient urban areas.\n This indicator will track human-related loss. The disaster loss data (particularly mortality) are significantly influenced by large-scale catastrophic event, which represent important outliers. UNISDR recommends countries to report the data by event, so complementary analysis can be done by both including and excluding such catastrophic events.\n The indicator will build bridge between SDGs and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction because the reduction of human related loss is included in the Sendai Framework global targets and will also be monitored under the Sendai Framework Monitoring Mechanism.",,,,,,,"National disaster loss database, reported to UNISDR",,,"By country, by event, by hazard type (e.g. disaggregation by climatological, hydrological, meteorological, geophysical, biological and extra-terrestrial for natural hazards is possible following IRDR* classification), by death/missing/injured or ill/evacuated/relocated/people whose houses were damaged/people whose houses were destroyed/people who received food relief aid.\n*Integrated Research on Disaster Risk (2014), Peril Classification and Hazard Glossary (IRDR DATA Publication No.1), Beijing: Integrated Research on Disaster Risk.\n Additionally, the Expert Group recommended disaggregation by age, sex, location of residence and other characteristics (e.g. disability) as relevant and possible. Aggregation of ""location of residence"": ideally by sub-national administrative unit similar to municipality.",Summation of data from national disaster loss databases,"\tThis is proposal by UNISDR based on our experience and knowledge built in the period under the Hyogo Framework for Action (2005-2015). The proposed indicator was further reviewed and examined by other UN agencies including FAO, GFDRR, IOM, UNCCD, UNDP, UNESCAP, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCR, UNOCHA, UNOOSA, UNOPS, UNU, UNWOMEN, WHO and WMO (though not all organizations listed here provided comments for this indicator) and submitted to the IAEG process in early-July 2015, then again reviewed by the Technical Expert Group consisting of more than 60 experts from UN system, academic and research, civil sector and private sector in 27-29 July 2015 and submitted and examined by the Member States in the 1st Open-ended Intergovernmental Expert Working Group on Indicators and Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction held in 29-30 September 2015. The suggested indicator is currently under review by the Member States and UNISDR is receiving written inputs from the Member States. \n\tThe proposed indicators will be also used to monitor Sendai Framework global targets and therefore the detailed definitions shall be discussed and agreed in Open-ended Intergovernmental Expert Working Group on Indicators and Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction, as outlined in Sendai Framework for Disaster Reduction 2015-2030. The Working Group is likely to finalize the discussion and submit the final report to the GA in December 2016. \n\tNot every country has a comparable national disaster loss database that is consistent with the UNISDR guidelines (current coverage is 85 countries. Additional 32 countries are expected to be covered in 2015-16). Therefore, by 2020, it is expected that all countries will build/adjust the database according to the UNISDR guidelines and report the data to UNISDR.",Disaggregated by gender (if agreed by country in the Open-ended Intergovernmental Expert Working Group),,"Related targets in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030:\n Substantially reduce global disaster mortality by 2030, aiming to lower average per 100,000 global mortality between 2020-2030 compared to 2005-2015.\n Substantially reduce the number of affected people globally by 2030, aiming to lower the average global figure per 100,000 between 2020-2030 compared to 2005-2015.\n Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030:\n (http://www.preventionweb.net/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf)",,11.5,13.1,1.3,14.2,15.3,3.9,3.6,3.d,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  -1.5,TRUE,1,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-1.pdf,17,"By 2030, build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other economic, social and environmental shocks and disasters.",1.5.2,Direct disaster economic loss attributed to disasters in relation to global gross domestic product (GDP),UNISDR,,"From UNISDR:\n Definition:\n Direct economic loss: Direct loss is nearly equivalent to physical damage. The monetary value of total or partial destruction of physical assets existing in the affected area. Examples include loss to physical assets such as damaged housings, factories and infrastructure. Direct losses usually happen during the event or within the first few hours after the event and are often assessed soon after the event to estimate recovery cost and claim insurance payments. These are tangible and relatively easy to measure. Direct Economic loss in this indicator framework consists of agriculture loss, damage to industrial and commercial facilities, damage to housings and critical infrastructures. \n\tWe limit the economic loss into direct economic loss, excluding indirect loss (e.g. loss due to interrupted production) and macro-economic loss. The reason is that there is not yet universally standardized methodology to measure indirect and macro-economic loss while direct loss data monitoring is relatively simpler and more standardized. \nGlobal gross domestic product: Summation of GDP of Countries. GDP definition according to the World Bank. \nHazardous event: The occurrence of a natural or human-induced phenomenon in a particular place during a particular period of time due to the existence of a hazard. \nHazard: A potentially damaging physical event, phenomenon or human activity that may cause the loss of life or injury, property damage, social and economic disruption or environmental degradation. \nUNISDR recommends setting NO threshold for recording hazardous event in order to monitor all hazardous events. Small-scale but frequent hazardous events that are not registered in international disaster loss databases account for an important share of damages and losses when they are combined, and often go unnoticed by the national and international community. These events, when accumulated, are often a source of poverty in developing countries but can be effectively addressed by well-designed policies. The scope of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 is ""the risk of small-scale and large-scale, frequent and infrequent, sudden and slow-onset disasters, caused by natural or man-made hazards as well as relate environmental, technological and biological hazards and risks"". \nRegarding the inclusion of biological and environmental hazards in natural hazards category and whether and how to integrate man-made hazards, UNISDR will discuss the issue with WHO and other organizations (for example, WHO would be in a better position in terms of data, knowledge and relationship with Member States and other stakeholders to monitor biological events including epidemics. However, we generally do not expect biological disasters will cause physical damages to facilities. ). \n\tNote: Terminology will be discussed and finalized in the Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group for Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction.","The original national disaster loss databases usually register physical damage value (housing unit loss, infrastructure loss etc.). Need conversion from physical value to monetary value according to the UNISDR methodology. After converted, divide global direct economic loss by global GDP (inflation adjusted, constant USD) calculated from World Bank Development Indicators.","Cities around the world, as well as rural populations, witness growing disaster risks. Impacts of climate change on sustainable development are observed through both slow-onset events (e.g. sea level rise, increasing temperatures, ocean acidification, glacial retreat and related impacts, salinization, land and forest degradation, loss of biodiversity and desertification) and extreme weather events. The economic loss indicator would track loss to agricultural, industrial and commercial sectors and damage to housing and critical infrastructure. \nCities are some of the most vulnerable areas to natural disasters. Unplanned urban development (e.g. informal settlements, overcrowding, inadequate infrastructures) exacerbates urban vulnerability to climate change impacts and hydro-meteorological and geological hazards. Over half of all coastal areas are urbanized and 21 of the world's 33 mega cities lie in coastal flood zones. SIDS and coastal regions are particularly affected by sea level rise, coastal flooding and erosion, and extreme events (e.g. tsunamis and storm surges) due to undermining natural protective barriers, low levels of development combined with rapid population growth in low lying coastal areas and inadequate capacity to adapt. Poor urban populations must often resort to unsustainable coping strategies and mechanisms. \nLarge numbers of people remain perilously close to falling into poverty, experiencing shocks that they are unable to cope with. For the poor, a shock of even a relatively short duration can have long term consequences. Several dimensions of poverty are closely related to environment, which is often affected by natural disasters. The poverty reduction agenda could include well-designed social protection scheme to help protecting the poor against sudden shocks and the development of capacities to better predict and prepare for such shocks. Better management of natural resources can themselves strengthen the resilience of the poor, by both reducing the likelihood of natural hazardous events and offering resources to help cope with them. \nThe environment for food production is increasingly challenging, particularly for smallholders, due to environmental and climate-related factors. Similar to extreme income poverty, food insecurity continues to be predominantly concentrated in rural areas of developing countries, and disproportionately affects poor farmers, agricultural workers, pastoralists and rural communities. Common conditions for protracted crisis situations include frequent or continued exposure to shocks that undermine livelihoods, food and market systems. Special consideration needs to be given to population living in areas prone to environmental and natural disaster shocks. \nBiodiversity provides ecosystem resilience and contributes to the ability to respond to unpredictable global changes and natural disasters. Healthy ecosystems act as buffers against natural hazards, providing valuable yet underutilized approaches for climate change adaptation, enhancing natural resilience and reducing the vulnerability of people, for example to floods and the effects of land degradation. These ecosystem services improve the sustainability and economic efficiency of built infrastructure, and are critical for sustainable and resilient urban areas. \nThis indicator will track direct physical loss expressed in economic term. The disaster loss data (particularly mortality) are significantly influenced by large-scale catastrophic event, which represent important outliers. UNISDR recommends countries to report the data by event, so complementary analysis can be done by both including and excluding such catastrophic events. The indicator will build bridge between SDGs and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction because the reduction of direct economic loss is included in the Sendai Framework global targets and will also be monitored under the Sendai Framework Monitoring Mechanism.",,,,,,,"National disaster loss database, reported to UNISDR",,,"By country, by event, by hazard type (e.g. disaggregation by climatological, hydrological, meteorological, geophysical, biological and extra-terrestrial for natural hazards is possible following IRDR* classification), by asset loss category. \n\t*Integrated Research on Disaster Risk (2014), Peril Classification and Hazard Glossary (IRDR DATA Publication No.1), Beijing: Integrated Research on Disaster Risk \nIdeally, in addition, by sub-national administrative unit.",Summation of data from national disaster loss databases and World Bank Development Indicators,"\tThis is proposal by UNISDR based on our experience and knowledge built in the period under the Hyogo Framework for Action (2005-2015). The proposed indicator was further reviewed and examined by other UN agencies including FAO, GFDRR, IOM, UNCCD, UNDP, UNESCAP, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCR, UNOCHA, UNOOSA, UNOPS, UNU, UNWOMEN, WHO and WMO (though not all organizations listed here provided comments for this indicator) and submitted to the IAEG process in early-July 2015, then again reviewed by the Technical Expert Group consisting of more than 60 experts from UN system, academic and research, civil sector and private sector in 27-29 July 2015 and submitted and examined by the Member States in the 1st Open-ended Intergovernmental Expert Working Group on Indicators and Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction held in 29-30 September 2015. The suggested indicator is currently under review by the Member States and UNISDR is receiving written inputs from the Member States. \n\tThe proposed indicators will be also used to monitor Sendai Framework global targets and therefore the detailed definitions shall be discussed and agreed in Open-ended Intergovernmental Expert Working Group on Indicators and Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction, as outlined in Sendai Framework for Disaster Reduction 2015-2030. The Working Group is likely to finalize the discussion and submit the final report to the GA in December 2016. \n\tNot every country has a comparable national disaster loss database that is consistent with the UNISDR guidelines (current coverage is 85 countries. Additional 32 countries are expected to be covered in 2015-16). Therefore, by 2020, it is expected that all countries will build/adjust the database according to the UNISDR guidelines and report the data to UNISDR.",,,Related targets in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030: \n\tReduce direct disaster economic loss in relation to global gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030. \nSendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030: (http://www.preventionweb.net/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf),,11.5,13.1,2.4,14.2,15.3,3.d,13.b,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  -1.5,FALSE,1,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-1.pdf,21,"By 2030, build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other economic, social and environmental shocks and disasters.",1.5.3,Number of countries that adopt and implement national disaster risk reduction strategies in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  -1.5,FALSE,1,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-1.pdf,21,"By 2030, build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other economic, social and environmental shocks and disasters.",1.5.4,Proportion of local governments that adopt and implement local disaster risk reduction strategies in line with national disaster risk reduction strategies,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +1.4,TRUE,1,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-1.pdf,8,"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.",1.4.2,"Udio ukupnog punoljetnog stanovništva sa sigurnim pravom vlasništva nad zemljištem, (a)sa zakonski priznatom dokumentacijom i (b)koji svoja prava nad zemljištem smatraju sigurnim, prema spolu i vrsti prava na zemljište",UN-HABITAT,,"Land Tenure\n Land tenure can be described as a bundle of rights that individuals and communities have with regard to land, which may include the rights to occupy, to use, to develop, to inherit, and to transfer land. Some of these rights will be held by individuals, some by groups, and others by political entities. This bundle of rights can be broken up, rearranged and passed on to others. The following is the typology:\n Secure tenure rights or tenure security\n Tenure security is the right of individuals and groups to effective protection by the state against evictions, i.e. under international law, ""the permanent or temporary removal against their will of individuals, families and/communities from the home and/or the land they occupy, without the provision of, and access to, appropriate form of legal or other protection"". Security of tenure can then be defined as ""an agreement between an individual or group about land and residential property, which is governed and regulated by a legal and administrative framework. A person or household can be said to have secure tenure when they are protected from involuntary removal from their land or residence by the state, except in exceptional circumstances, and then only by means of a known and agreed legal procedure, which must itself be objective, equally applicable, contestable and independent.""\n Perceived tenure security refers to an individual's experience of his/her tenure situation or their estimated probability that their land rights will not be lost as a result of eviction by the state, land owner or other authority, or because of other factors that may cause involuntary relocation or curtail their use of the land, such as threats of land conflicts.\n Characterizing tenure status is based on four sets of interrelated parameters:\n \t1. Primary tenure rights on land\n \t2. Land tenure (rights of occupants on the land)\n \t3. Occupancy status (of the dwelling unit)\n \t4. Type of development\n Legal tenure security refers to the legal status of tenure and its protection backed up by state authority. De facto tenure security is based on the actual control of property, regardless of the legal status in which it is held. It can best be defined by the elements that compose it or contribute to it, such as the length of time of occupation, its socially accepted legitimacy and the level and cohesion of community organization.\n UNFAO (2003) defines Communally held land is where rights to use resources are held by a community. It refers to situations where rights to use resources are held and controlled by a community. While these rights may include communal rights to pastures and forests, they may also include exclusive private rights to agricultural land and residential plots.\n Local Communities\n A group of individuals belonging to the same community residing within or in the same vicinity of a particular parcel, property or natural resource. The community members are co-owners that share exclusive rights and duties, and benefits contribute to the community development.\n Indigenous land rights\n Indigenous land rights are rights specific to a particular ethnic group, having evolved through interaction of culture and environment and overseen by authorities whose legitimacy is based on occupation and spiritual ties to the locality.\n Community land rights\n Community land rights are collective rights of land ownership, access or use held or exercised in common by members of a community. A community may be designated as a village-based or more geographically dispersed community, or a clan or a lineage.\n Collective rights\n A situation where holders of land rights are clearly defined as a group and have the right to exclude others from the enjoyment of those land rights. Collective ownership of a natural resource refers to a situation where the holders of rights to a given natural resource are clearly defined as a collective group, and where they have the right to exclude third parties from the enjoyment of those rights.\n Common property\n Common property refers to situations in which entitled beneficiaries hold specified rights in common to specific areas of land, land-based natural resources or other types of property.\n Property / private property\n Property signifies dominion or right of use, control and disposition, which one may lawfully exercise over things, objects or land.\n Property rights\n Property rights refer to ""a bundle of rights to use, control, and transfer assets, including land. These include the rights to occupy, enjoy and use; to restrict others from entry or use; to dispose, buy or inherit; to develop or improve; to cultivate; to sublet; to realize financial benefits; and to access services in association with land.\n Open access resources\n Resources ' including land ' to which everyone has unrestricted access and that are not considered to be the property of anyone.\n Ecosystem services:\n Ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems. These include provisioning, regulating, and cultural services that directly affect people and supporting services needed to maintain the other services.\n Natural resources:\n The term 'natural resources' refers to oil, minerals, forests, water, and fertile land that occur in nature and can be exploited for economic gain.","Percentage of women and men with secure tenure rights to individually or communally held land, property and natural resources. Method 1 : (The number of people ( women and men) with documented evidence of secure tenure rights to individually or communally held land, property and natural resources divided by the total number of adult population surveyed) x 100.\n Method 2 : (The number of households or local communities with documented evidence of secure tenure rights to individually or communally held land, property and natural resources divided by the total number of households or communities surveyed) x 100.",,,,,,,,"There are four data sources that are complementary: Data can be computed from (i) administrative data from national land agencies, (ii) global or regional opinion polls will provide data on perceptions and (iii) Household Surveys. (iv)The Land Mark tool will provide information for Indigenous peoples",Proportion of households with documented rights to land\n Proportion of households who perceive their rights to land are secure\n Proportion of households with legally documented rights to land\n Proportion of women with legally documented rights to land\n Proportion of women who perceive their rights to land are secure\n P7:S9 of men with legally documented rights to land\n Proportion of men who perceive their rights are secure\n Proportion of local communities with legally documented rights to land\n Proportion of local communities who perceive their rights to land are secure\n Proportion of indigenous peoples with legally documented rights to land\n Proportion of indigenous peoples who perceive their rights are secure,The monitoring of the indicator can be repeated at regular intervals of 3 - 5 years.,"This indicator can be disaggregated spatially (inc. urban/rural) and by the age and sex, socio-economic profiles, and groups of people/communities (indigenous, local communities).",,"Considering that secure tenure over land and natural resources is an essential driver for change towards sustainability, it is imperative that Goals 1, 2, and 5, which have explicit reference to ownership, land and other resources, include indicators to measure this driver of change. A coalition of institutions, including experts from UNEP, UN-Habitat and IFAD, have offered language and meta data, although recognizing that baselines are currently not available for some of the indicators. Nevertheless, such indicators should be in the SDG package so that more research and development can be spurred on and make the SDGs relevant to people's lives.\n Security of Tenure Although the methodology is now developed for Household surveys, this is not yet tested.\n The Administrative data although available in all countries, it is still paper based in most of the developing countries. Data quality will therefore be improved over time as computerization increasingly takes route.",,Globally comparable. Can be reported by all countries.,,"Food and Agriculture Organization (2012). Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2801e/i2801e.pdf \n\tFood and Agriculture Organization (2004). Land Reform, Land Settlement and Cooperatives. Ref: FAO Corporate Documents Repository. Indigenous Peoples' rights to lands, territories and resources: selected international and domestic legal considerations. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5407t/y5407t0g.htm \n\tFood and Agriculture Organization (2003). Multilingual Thesaurus of Land Tenure, English Version. Rome: FAO. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/x2038e/x2038e00.htm \n\tUN-Habitat, Global Land Tool Network (2008). Secure land rights for all. Nairobi. Available at: http://unhabitat.org/books/secure-land-rights-for-all/ \n\tUN-Habitat (2006). Setting up a Global Monitoring System on Secure Tenure. Nairobi. \n\tUN-Habitat (2014)Options For Global Reporting On GLTN/GLII Land Indicators In The Context Of The Sustainable Development Goals \n\tMillennium Ecoystem Assessment (2005): Ecosystems and Human Well-being. Synthesis. A Report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Available at: http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf \n\tUN DPA and UNEP (2015), Natural Resources and Conflict. A guide for Mediation Practitioners URL References:",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +1.5,TRUE,1,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-1.pdf,12,"By 2030, build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other economic, social and environmental shocks and disasters.",1.5.1,"Broj umrlih osoba, nestalih osoba i osoba izravno pogođenih katastrofama na 100 000 stanovnika",UNISDR,,"From UNISDR:\n Definition:\n Death: The number of people who died during the disaster, or directly after, as a direct result of the hazardous event.\n Missing:\n The number of people whose whereabouts is unknown since the hazardous event. It includes people who are presumed dead although there is no physical evidence. The data on number of deaths and number of missing are mutually exclusive.\n Affected people:\n People who are affected by a hazardous event.\n Comment:\n People can be affected directly or indirectly. Affected people may experience short-term or long-term consequences to their lives, livelihoods or health and in the economic, physical, social, cultural and environmental assets.\n Directly affected:\n People who have suffered injury, illness or other health effects; who were evacuated, displaced, relocated; or have suffered direct damage to their livelihoods, economic, physical, social, cultural and environmental assets.\n Indirectly affected:\n People who have suffered consequences, other than or in addition to direct effects, over time due to disruption or changes in economy, critical infrastructures, basic services, commerce, work or social, health and physiological consequences.\n In this indicator, given the difficulties in assessing the full range of all affected (directly and indirectly), UNISDR proposes the use of an indicator that would estimate ""directly affected"" as a proxy for the number of affected. This indicator, while not perfect, comes from data widely available and could be used consistently across countries and over time to measure the achievement of the Target B.\n From the perspective of data availability and measurability, it is proposed to build a composite indicator which consists of ""directly affected"", or those who are \n\tInjured or ill, \n\tEvacuated, \n\tRelocated \nand to measure the number who suffered direct damage to their livelihoods or assets, \n\tPeople whose houses were damaged or destroyed \n\tPeople who received food relief aid.\n Injured or ill:\n The number of people suffering from physical injuries, trauma or cases of disease requiring immediate medical assistance as a direct result of a hazardous event.\n Evacuated:\n The number of people who temporarily moved from where they were (including their place of residence, work places, schools and hospitals) to safer locations in order to ensure their safety.\n Relocated:\n The number of people who moved permanently from their homes to new sites due to hazardous event. Note: This definition excludes preventive relocation before the event.\n People whose houses were damaged or destroyed due to hazardous events:\n The estimated number of inhabitants previously living in the houses (housing units) damaged or destroyed. All the inhabitants of these houses (housing units) are assumed to be affected being in their dwelling or by direct consequence of the destruction/damage to their housings (housing units). An average number of inhabitants per house (housing unit) in the country can be used to estimate the value.\n Houses destroyed:\n Houses (housing units) levelled, buried, collapsed, washed away or damaged to the extent that they are no longer habitable.\n Houses damaged:\n Houses (housing units) with minor damage, not structural or architectural, which may continue to be habitable, although they may require some repair or cleaning.\n People who received food relief aid:\n The number of persons who received food /nutrition, by government or as humanitarian aid, during or in the aftermath of a hazardous event.\n Hazardous event:\n The occurrence of a natural or human-induced phenomenon in a particular place during a particular period of time due to the existence of a hazard.\n Hazard:\n A potentially damaging physical event, phenomenon or human activity that may cause the loss of life or injury, property damage, social and economic disruption or environmental degradation.\n UNISDR recommends setting NO threshold for recording hazardous event in order to monitor all hazardous events. Small-scale but frequent hazardous events that are not registered in international disaster loss databases account for an important share of damages and losses when they are combined, and often go unnoticed by the national and international community. These events, when accumulated, are often a source of poverty in developing countries but can be effectively addressed by well-designed policies. The scope of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 is ""the risk of small-scale and large-scale, frequent and infrequent, sudden and slow-onset disasters, caused by natural or man-made hazards as well as relate environmental, technological and biological hazards and risks"".\n Regarding the inclusion of biological and environmental hazards in natural hazards category and whether and how to integrate man-made hazards, UNISDR will discuss the issue with WHO and other organizations (for example, WHO would be in a better position in terms of data, knowledge and relationship with Member States and other stakeholders to monitor biological events including epidemics. However, we generally do not expect biological disasters will cause physical damages to facilities.).\n Note: Terminology will be discussed and finalized in the Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group for Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction.","Summation of data on related indicators from national disaster loss databases. Make the sum a relative figure by using global population data (World Bank or UN Statistics information). Relativity is important because population growth (expected to be 9 billion in 2050) may translate into increased hazard exposure of population.\n The Expert Group recommends not using the indicators related with the people whose houses were damaged/destroyed in the computation. UNISDR and IRDR groups recommend using them as they can be estimated from widely available and verifiable data and reflect vulnerability and livelihood issues. Data on housing damage and destroyed is essential for economic loss, so using these indicators would not impose additional data collection burden.\n Double-counting: From practical perspective, double counting of affected people is unavoidable (for example, injured and relocated) in many countries. Minimum double counting is summing 'number of injured' and Number of people whose housings were damaged or destroyed. Relocated is sub-set of number of people whose housings were destroyed.\n The data can be disaggregated by hazard type. When applied to proposed target 13.1 and 15.3, hydrological, meteorological and climatological and indirectly biological disasters are monitored.","Cities around the world, as well as rural populations, witness growing disaster risks. Impacts of climate change on sustainable development are observed through both slow-onset events (e.g. sea level rise, increasing temperatures, ocean acidification, glacial retreat and related impacts, salinization, land and forest degradation, loss of biodiversity and desertification) and extreme weather events. Human loss can be measured by the number of deaths, missing, injured or ill, evacuated, relocated, people whose houses were damaged/destroyed and people who received food relief aid as a direct result of the hazardous events.\n Cities are some of the most vulnerable areas to natural disasters. Unplanned urban development (e.g. informal settlements, overcrowding, inadequate infrastructures) exacerbates urban vulnerability to climate change impacts and hydro-meteorological and geological hazards. Over half of all coastal areas are urbanized and 21 of the world's 33 mega cities lie in coastal flood zones. SIDS and coastal regions are particularly affected by sea level rise, coastal flooding and erosion, and extreme events (e.g. tsunamis and storm surges) due to undermining natural protective barriers, low levels of development combined with rapid population growth in low lying coastal areas and inadequate capacity to adapt. Poor urban populations must often resort to unsustainable coping strategies and mechanisms. \nLarge numbers of people remain perilously close to falling into poverty, experiencing shocks that they are unable to cope with. For the poor, a shock of even a relatively short duration can have long term consequences. Several dimensions of poverty are closely related to environment, which is often affected by natural disasters. The poverty reduction agenda could include well-designed social protection scheme to help protecting the poor against sudden shocks and the development of capacities to better predict and prepare for such shocks. Better management of natural resources can themselves strengthen the resilience of the poor, by both reducing the likelihood of natural hazardous events and offering resources to help cope with them.\n Biodiversity provides ecosystem resilience and contributes to the ability to respond to unpredictable global changes and natural disasters. Healthy ecosystems act as buffers against natural hazards, providing valuable yet underutilized approaches for climate change adaptation, enhancing natural resilience and reducing the vulnerability of people, for example to floods and the effects of land degradation. These ecosystem services improve the sustainability and economic efficiency of built infrastructure, and are critical for sustainable and resilient urban areas.\n This indicator will track human-related loss. The disaster loss data (particularly mortality) are significantly influenced by large-scale catastrophic event, which represent important outliers. UNISDR recommends countries to report the data by event, so complementary analysis can be done by both including and excluding such catastrophic events.\n The indicator will build bridge between SDGs and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction because the reduction of human related loss is included in the Sendai Framework global targets and will also be monitored under the Sendai Framework Monitoring Mechanism.",,,,,,,"National disaster loss database, reported to UNISDR",,,"By country, by event, by hazard type (e.g. disaggregation by climatological, hydrological, meteorological, geophysical, biological and extra-terrestrial for natural hazards is possible following IRDR* classification), by death/missing/injured or ill/evacuated/relocated/people whose houses were damaged/people whose houses were destroyed/people who received food relief aid.\n*Integrated Research on Disaster Risk (2014), Peril Classification and Hazard Glossary (IRDR DATA Publication No.1), Beijing: Integrated Research on Disaster Risk.\n Additionally, the Expert Group recommended disaggregation by age, sex, location of residence and other characteristics (e.g. disability) as relevant and possible. Aggregation of ""location of residence"": ideally by sub-national administrative unit similar to municipality.",Summation of data from national disaster loss databases,"\tThis is proposal by UNISDR based on our experience and knowledge built in the period under the Hyogo Framework for Action (2005-2015). The proposed indicator was further reviewed and examined by other UN agencies including FAO, GFDRR, IOM, UNCCD, UNDP, UNESCAP, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCR, UNOCHA, UNOOSA, UNOPS, UNU, UNWOMEN, WHO and WMO (though not all organizations listed here provided comments for this indicator) and submitted to the IAEG process in early-July 2015, then again reviewed by the Technical Expert Group consisting of more than 60 experts from UN system, academic and research, civil sector and private sector in 27-29 July 2015 and submitted and examined by the Member States in the 1st Open-ended Intergovernmental Expert Working Group on Indicators and Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction held in 29-30 September 2015. The suggested indicator is currently under review by the Member States and UNISDR is receiving written inputs from the Member States. \n\tThe proposed indicators will be also used to monitor Sendai Framework global targets and therefore the detailed definitions shall be discussed and agreed in Open-ended Intergovernmental Expert Working Group on Indicators and Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction, as outlined in Sendai Framework for Disaster Reduction 2015-2030. The Working Group is likely to finalize the discussion and submit the final report to the GA in December 2016. \n\tNot every country has a comparable national disaster loss database that is consistent with the UNISDR guidelines (current coverage is 85 countries. Additional 32 countries are expected to be covered in 2015-16). Therefore, by 2020, it is expected that all countries will build/adjust the database according to the UNISDR guidelines and report the data to UNISDR.",Disaggregated by gender (if agreed by country in the Open-ended Intergovernmental Expert Working Group),,"Related targets in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030:\n Substantially reduce global disaster mortality by 2030, aiming to lower average per 100,000 global mortality between 2020-2030 compared to 2005-2015.\n Substantially reduce the number of affected people globally by 2030, aiming to lower the average global figure per 100,000 between 2020-2030 compared to 2005-2015.\n Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030:\n (http://www.preventionweb.net/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf)",,11.5,13.1,1.3,14.2,15.3,3.9,3.6,3.d,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +1.5,TRUE,1,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-1.pdf,17,"By 2030, build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other economic, social and environmental shocks and disasters.",1.5.2,Izravni gospodarski gubitci prouzročeni katastrofama u odnosu na globalni bruto domaći proizvod (BDP),UNISDR,,"From UNISDR:\n Definition:\n Direct economic loss: Direct loss is nearly equivalent to physical damage. The monetary value of total or partial destruction of physical assets existing in the affected area. Examples include loss to physical assets such as damaged housings, factories and infrastructure. Direct losses usually happen during the event or within the first few hours after the event and are often assessed soon after the event to estimate recovery cost and claim insurance payments. These are tangible and relatively easy to measure. Direct Economic loss in this indicator framework consists of agriculture loss, damage to industrial and commercial facilities, damage to housings and critical infrastructures. \n\tWe limit the economic loss into direct economic loss, excluding indirect loss (e.g. loss due to interrupted production) and macro-economic loss. The reason is that there is not yet universally standardized methodology to measure indirect and macro-economic loss while direct loss data monitoring is relatively simpler and more standardized. \nGlobal gross domestic product: Summation of GDP of Countries. GDP definition according to the World Bank. \nHazardous event: The occurrence of a natural or human-induced phenomenon in a particular place during a particular period of time due to the existence of a hazard. \nHazard: A potentially damaging physical event, phenomenon or human activity that may cause the loss of life or injury, property damage, social and economic disruption or environmental degradation. \nUNISDR recommends setting NO threshold for recording hazardous event in order to monitor all hazardous events. Small-scale but frequent hazardous events that are not registered in international disaster loss databases account for an important share of damages and losses when they are combined, and often go unnoticed by the national and international community. These events, when accumulated, are often a source of poverty in developing countries but can be effectively addressed by well-designed policies. The scope of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 is ""the risk of small-scale and large-scale, frequent and infrequent, sudden and slow-onset disasters, caused by natural or man-made hazards as well as relate environmental, technological and biological hazards and risks"". \nRegarding the inclusion of biological and environmental hazards in natural hazards category and whether and how to integrate man-made hazards, UNISDR will discuss the issue with WHO and other organizations (for example, WHO would be in a better position in terms of data, knowledge and relationship with Member States and other stakeholders to monitor biological events including epidemics. However, we generally do not expect biological disasters will cause physical damages to facilities. ). \n\tNote: Terminology will be discussed and finalized in the Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group for Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction.","The original national disaster loss databases usually register physical damage value (housing unit loss, infrastructure loss etc.). Need conversion from physical value to monetary value according to the UNISDR methodology. After converted, divide global direct economic loss by global GDP (inflation adjusted, constant USD) calculated from World Bank Development Indicators.","Cities around the world, as well as rural populations, witness growing disaster risks. Impacts of climate change on sustainable development are observed through both slow-onset events (e.g. sea level rise, increasing temperatures, ocean acidification, glacial retreat and related impacts, salinization, land and forest degradation, loss of biodiversity and desertification) and extreme weather events. The economic loss indicator would track loss to agricultural, industrial and commercial sectors and damage to housing and critical infrastructure. \nCities are some of the most vulnerable areas to natural disasters. Unplanned urban development (e.g. informal settlements, overcrowding, inadequate infrastructures) exacerbates urban vulnerability to climate change impacts and hydro-meteorological and geological hazards. Over half of all coastal areas are urbanized and 21 of the world's 33 mega cities lie in coastal flood zones. SIDS and coastal regions are particularly affected by sea level rise, coastal flooding and erosion, and extreme events (e.g. tsunamis and storm surges) due to undermining natural protective barriers, low levels of development combined with rapid population growth in low lying coastal areas and inadequate capacity to adapt. Poor urban populations must often resort to unsustainable coping strategies and mechanisms. \nLarge numbers of people remain perilously close to falling into poverty, experiencing shocks that they are unable to cope with. For the poor, a shock of even a relatively short duration can have long term consequences. Several dimensions of poverty are closely related to environment, which is often affected by natural disasters. The poverty reduction agenda could include well-designed social protection scheme to help protecting the poor against sudden shocks and the development of capacities to better predict and prepare for such shocks. Better management of natural resources can themselves strengthen the resilience of the poor, by both reducing the likelihood of natural hazardous events and offering resources to help cope with them. \nThe environment for food production is increasingly challenging, particularly for smallholders, due to environmental and climate-related factors. Similar to extreme income poverty, food insecurity continues to be predominantly concentrated in rural areas of developing countries, and disproportionately affects poor farmers, agricultural workers, pastoralists and rural communities. Common conditions for protracted crisis situations include frequent or continued exposure to shocks that undermine livelihoods, food and market systems. Special consideration needs to be given to population living in areas prone to environmental and natural disaster shocks. \nBiodiversity provides ecosystem resilience and contributes to the ability to respond to unpredictable global changes and natural disasters. Healthy ecosystems act as buffers against natural hazards, providing valuable yet underutilized approaches for climate change adaptation, enhancing natural resilience and reducing the vulnerability of people, for example to floods and the effects of land degradation. These ecosystem services improve the sustainability and economic efficiency of built infrastructure, and are critical for sustainable and resilient urban areas. \nThis indicator will track direct physical loss expressed in economic term. The disaster loss data (particularly mortality) are significantly influenced by large-scale catastrophic event, which represent important outliers. UNISDR recommends countries to report the data by event, so complementary analysis can be done by both including and excluding such catastrophic events. The indicator will build bridge between SDGs and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction because the reduction of direct economic loss is included in the Sendai Framework global targets and will also be monitored under the Sendai Framework Monitoring Mechanism.",,,,,,,"National disaster loss database, reported to UNISDR",,,"By country, by event, by hazard type (e.g. disaggregation by climatological, hydrological, meteorological, geophysical, biological and extra-terrestrial for natural hazards is possible following IRDR* classification), by asset loss category. \n\t*Integrated Research on Disaster Risk (2014), Peril Classification and Hazard Glossary (IRDR DATA Publication No.1), Beijing: Integrated Research on Disaster Risk \nIdeally, in addition, by sub-national administrative unit.",Summation of data from national disaster loss databases and World Bank Development Indicators,"\tThis is proposal by UNISDR based on our experience and knowledge built in the period under the Hyogo Framework for Action (2005-2015). The proposed indicator was further reviewed and examined by other UN agencies including FAO, GFDRR, IOM, UNCCD, UNDP, UNESCAP, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCR, UNOCHA, UNOOSA, UNOPS, UNU, UNWOMEN, WHO and WMO (though not all organizations listed here provided comments for this indicator) and submitted to the IAEG process in early-July 2015, then again reviewed by the Technical Expert Group consisting of more than 60 experts from UN system, academic and research, civil sector and private sector in 27-29 July 2015 and submitted and examined by the Member States in the 1st Open-ended Intergovernmental Expert Working Group on Indicators and Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction held in 29-30 September 2015. The suggested indicator is currently under review by the Member States and UNISDR is receiving written inputs from the Member States. \n\tThe proposed indicators will be also used to monitor Sendai Framework global targets and therefore the detailed definitions shall be discussed and agreed in Open-ended Intergovernmental Expert Working Group on Indicators and Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction, as outlined in Sendai Framework for Disaster Reduction 2015-2030. The Working Group is likely to finalize the discussion and submit the final report to the GA in December 2016. \n\tNot every country has a comparable national disaster loss database that is consistent with the UNISDR guidelines (current coverage is 85 countries. Additional 32 countries are expected to be covered in 2015-16). Therefore, by 2020, it is expected that all countries will build/adjust the database according to the UNISDR guidelines and report the data to UNISDR.",,,Related targets in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030: \n\tReduce direct disaster economic loss in relation to global gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030. \nSendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030: (http://www.preventionweb.net/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf),,11.5,13.1,2.4,14.2,15.3,3.d,13.b,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +1.5,FALSE,1,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-1.pdf,21,"By 2030, build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other economic, social and environmental shocks and disasters.",1.5.3,Broj zemalja koje donose i provode nacionalne strategije za smanjenje rizika od katastrofa u skladu sa Sendai okvirom smanjenja rizika od katastrofa za razdoblje 2015. - 2030.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +1.5,FALSE,1,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-1.pdf,21,"By 2030, build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other economic, social and environmental shocks and disasters.",1.5.4,Udio jedinica lokalne samouprave koje donose i provode lokalne strategije za smanjenje rizika od katastrofa u skladu s nacionalnom strategijom za smanjenje rizika od katastrofa,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
   1.a,FALSE,1,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-1.pdf,22,"Ensure significant mobilization of resources from a variety of sources, including through enhanced development cooperation, in order to provide adequate and predictable means for developing countries, in particular least developed countries, to implement programmes and policies to end poverty in all its dimensions.",1.a.1,Udio nacionalno generiranih sredstava koje je vlada izravno dodijelila programima redukcije siromaštva,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
   1.a,FALSE,1,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-1.pdf,22,"Ensure significant mobilization of resources from a variety of sources, including through enhanced development cooperation, in order to provide adequate and predictable means for developing countries, in particular least developed countries, to implement programmes and policies to end poverty in all its dimensions.",1.a.2,"Udio ukupne državne potrošnje na osnovne usluge (obrazovanje, zdravstvo i socijalna zaštita)",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  -1.a,FALSE,1,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-1.pdf,22,"Ensure significant mobilization of resources from a variety of sources, including through enhanced development cooperation, in order to provide adequate and predictable means for developing countries, in particular least developed countries, to implement programmes and policies to end poverty in all its dimensions.",1.a.3,Zbroj ukupnih subvencija i direktnih stranih ulaganja koji su dodijeljeni za suzbijanje siromaštva kao postotak  BDP-a,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  -1.b,FALSE,1,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-1.pdf,23,"Create sound policy frameworks at the national, regional and international levels, based on pro-poor and gender sensitive development strategies, to support accelerated investment in poverty eradication actions.",1.b.1,"Proportion of government recurrent and capital spending to sectors that disproportionately benefit women, the poor and vulnerable groups",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +1.a,FALSE,1,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-1.pdf,22,"Ensure significant mobilization of resources from a variety of sources, including through enhanced development cooperation, in order to provide adequate and predictable means for developing countries, in particular least developed countries, to implement programmes and policies to end poverty in all its dimensions.",1.a.3,Zbroj ukupnih subvencija i direktnih stranih ulaganja koji su dodijeljeni za suzbijanje siromaštva kao postotak BDP-a,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +1.b,FALSE,1,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-1.pdf,23,"Create sound policy frameworks at the national, regional and international levels, based on pro-poor and gender sensitive development strategies, to support accelerated investment in poverty eradication actions.",1.b.1,Javna društvena potrošnja u korist siromašnih,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
   2.1,TRUE,2,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-2.pdf,2,"By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.",2.1.1,Prevalencija (iskorjenjivanje) pothranjenosti,FAO,,"The Prevalence of Undernourishment (PoU) is defined as the probability that a randomly selected individual from the reference population is found to consume less than his/her calorie requirement for an active and healthy life. It is written as: ______ = ' __(__)____ __<________ where f(x) is the probability density function of per capita calorie consumption and MDER is a Minimum Dietary Energy Requirement. The MDER threshold is computed on the basis of normative energy requirement standards referred to a minimum level of physical activity. Estimates of the number of undernourished (NoU) - calculated by multiplying the PoU by the size of the reference population - are used to monitor progress towards the World Food Summit goal of reducing by half the number of people suffering from undernourishment. The parameters needed for the calculation of the indicator are: the mean level of dietary energy consumption (DEC); a cut-off point defined as the Minimum Dietary Energy Requirement (MDER); the coefficient of variation (CV) as a parameter accounting for inequality in food consumption; and a skewedness (SK) parameter accounting for asymmetry in the distribution. The DEC as well as the MDER are updated annually, with the former calculated from the FAO Food Balance Sheets. The MDER is calculated as a weighted average of energy requirements according to sex and age class, and is updated each year from UN population ratio data. The inequality in food consumption parameters are derived from National Household Survey data when such data is available and reliable. Due to the limited number of available household surveys, the inequality in food access parameters are updated much less frequently over time than the DEC and MDER parameters.",,,,,"The indicator refers to food available for consumption over a period on one year. It refers to a severe condition of lack of food. In this respect, it is fully consistent with the spirit of the developmental goal. Energy intake is a very specific aspect of food insecurity, which applies where conditions are more severe.\n Ideally, undernourishment should be assessed at the individual level by comparing individual energy requirements with individual energy intakes. This would enable the classification of each person in the population as undernourished or not. However, this approach is not feasible for two reasons: individual energy requirements are practically unobservable with standard data collection methods; and individual food consumption is currently measured with precision in only a few countries and for relatively limited samples. The individual-level consumption data that can be estimated from National Household Survey data are largely approximated owing to disparities in intra-household food allocation, the variability of individual energy requirements, and the day-to-day variability of food consumption that can arise for reasons independent of food insecurity. The solution adopted by FAO has been to estimate the PoU with reference to the population as a whole, summarized through a representative individual, and to combine available micro-data on food consumption with macro-data.\n The Prevalence of Undernourishment indicator is still one of the most reliable tools to monitor progress towards reducing global hunger. Recent innovations to the methodology, such as those presented in Wanner et al. (2014) allow to improve the quality of global monitoring, and to capture more accurately progress in reducing hunger and how the problem is currently distributed globally. In 2012 the functional form of habitual food consumption was modified. The Skewed Normal functional form was introduced to take into account the asymmetry of the distribution. This was a major improvement, as it allowed better capturing the characteristics of the distribution, and how this would change when calories consumption increases. At the same time, a strong increase was promoted in the number of Household Budget Survey employed in the calculation of the CV and SK parameter. Household Budget Survey now cover about 70 percent of the total number of undernourished estimated. Another main recent refinement, introduced in 2014, is a data-driven flexible selection criterion for the choice of the functional form of the distribution of per capita habitual calorie consumption that maintains the probability framework. Further improvements to the calculation of inequality in food access parameters, both directly and indirectly, have been made in 2014 to allow for time-varying parameters that take into account economic progress and demographic changes.\n At the same time, the indicator does not convey information on the quality of food, nor on its nutritional value. The reason is that it focuses on the most severe aspect of hunger, and it is therefore solely based on the number of calories consumed through food. The parametric approach adopted by FAO allows obtaining reliable estimated for relatively large population groups.\n Information about the sufficiency of calories from food for specific population groups, such as the poor and the vulnerable, can be derived if such groups can be identified within the population, and if sampling allows drawing inference on the habitual food consumption of these groups.\n In principle, the indicator can be computed for specific population groups, such as the poor and the vulnerable. However, this requires that such groups are clearly identifiable in the population, and that sampling allows drawing inference on their habitual food consumption. In fact, such information is seldom available.","Yes, the indicator exists. FAO maintains the data and reports on it annually.\n Metadata are available at the FAO Statistics website http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/ess-fs/essfadata/it/#.VM89cGjF-VM as Excel sheets associated with the data; and from the FAOSTAT website, at http://faostat3.fao.org/download/D/*/E.","Reliability\n Reliability depends on the quality of the background data, specifically on Dietary Energy Supply, the distribution of habitual food consumption in the population ' which is derived from household budget surveys whenever possible - - the population, its structure and height distribution. No statistical margin of error can be determined for the prevalence of undernourishment.\n The ability of the indicator to approximate access to food depends upon the extent to which existing data allow characterizing effectively the probability distribution of habitual food consumption in the reference population. As mentioned, the FAO methodology combines available micro-data on food consumption derived from surveys with macro-data from food balance sheets. Food balance sheets provide information on the amount of food that is available for consumption after taking into account all the possible alternative uses of the food items; hence, they provide approximate measures of per capita consumption, which are available for a large number of countries and are homogenous. The methodology adopted for computing these data is currently under revision, together with the estimates of waste parameters employed to derive the DEC, so the level of accuracy is expected to increase in the next few years. Survey data, where available and reliable, are employed in the FAO methodology to compute the variability (CV) and skewedness (SK) parameters that characterize the distribution of food consumption f(x). It is therefore essential that surveys are improved to obtain more accurate measures of undernourishment. Such improvement will require promoting greater standardization across existing surveys, particularly household budget surveys, and conducting more refined surveys that capture food intake at the individual level.\n Coverage\n Consistent time series for the indicator exist from 1990-92 for about 140 countries. The indicator is regularly reported in the annual State of Food Insecurity in the World Report published by FAO, IFAD and WFP since 1999 and in the Millennium Development Goal Report of the UN Statistics Division. Data on the indicators are published on the FAO Statistics website, at http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/ess-fs/ess-fadata/it/#.VM89cGjF-VM and updated every year. From year 2014 they are also available in FAOSTAT, at http://faostat3.fao.org/download/D/*/E.\n Comparability across countries\n Comparability across time and space is relatively strong. The only potential cause of lack of homogeneity is the quality of the background data. Not all countries monitored undertake regular and reliable surveys of food consumption. In countries where this information source is of poor quality or missing, the distribution of habitual food consumption is estimated indirectly, through an econometric exercise that relates the CV of food consumption to food prices, incomes and their distribution.\n Sub-national estimates\n In principle the indicator could be defined at sub-national level. However, reliable information has to be available on the amount and distribution of habitual food consumption in the population of the sub-national areas of interest. In fact, this information is frequently available only for wide population sub-groups ' such as rural and urban areas and some major geographical areas. The global monitoring exercise has therefore always relied only on the Prevalence of Undernourishment at national level, and never used the indicator at sub-national levels.","Yes. A target for 2030 can be identified in terms of a minimum level, allowing for the possibility that lack of food has become marginal in the reference population. The choice of the threshold should also reflect the ability of the indicator to be accurate at such level, and effectively capture changes in the level","FAO maintains the data and reports on it annually. Metadata are available at the FAO Statistics website http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/ess-fs/essfadata/it/#.VM89cGjF-VM as Excel sheets associated with the data; and from the FAOSTAT website, at http://faostat3.fao.org/download/D/*/E.",,Annual,,,,,"Consistent time series for the indicator exist from 1990-92 for about 140 countries. The indicator is regularly reported in the annual State of Food Insecurity in the World Report published by FAO, IFAD and WFP since 1999 and in the Millennium Development Goal Report of the UN Statistics Division. Data on the indicators are published on the FAO Statistics website, at http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/ess-fs/ess-fadata/it/#.VM89cGjF-VM and updated every year. From year 2014 they are also available in FAOSTAT, http://faostat3.fao.org/download/D/*/E.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
   2.1,TRUE,2,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-2.pdf,4,"By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.",2.1.2,"Prevalencija (iskorjenjivanje) umjerene ili teške nesigurnosti hrane u stanovništvu, temeljena na skali iskustava nesigurnosti hrane (FIES)",FAO,,"These are in reality two related indicators, representing the percentage of individuals in the national adult population (15 or more years of age) that have experienced moderate or severe levels and severe levels of food insecurity respectively, during the previous year.\nSeverity of food insecurity is defined as the extent to which people have difficulties in accessing food of adequate quality and/or quantity due to lack of money or other resources. Difficulties include also psychological concerns associated with the struggle in accessing food.",,,,,"This indicator is a direct implementation of the concept of ""access to food"" that informs the target. Experiencebased food insecurity scales are the only available tools that address the effective ability to access food at the individual or household level, directly. Reliable measure at individual level, as afforded by these indicators, is crucial to respond to the need to ensure monitoring access ""by all people"" and that monitoring can be conducted ""in particular for the poor in vulnerable situations"".","The indicators and the global reference standard necessary to ensure proper cross-country comparability of the measures are being developed and will be maintained by the FAO Statistics Division, ""Voices of the Hungry""team. Metadata are available at: http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/ess-fs/voices/fiesscale/metadata/en/.","Reliability\n Reliability of an experience-based measure of food security could be compromised by issues related to (a) the choice and performance of the items used to form the scale and (b) limited sample sizes.\n \t(a) Choice and performance of the FIES items. Key results from the analysis of the data collected by FAO in 2014 in 145 countries through the GWP confirm the reliability of the FIES based measure of the prevalence of food security at different levels of severity even after relatively minor efforts of adaptation of the questions to local languages. Items' performance has been tested through the infit statistics and only in one case only one of the items showed an infit value outside the range 0.7-1.3 that is considered appropriate to ensure sufficient reliability. This confirms the appropriateness of the items chosen (a result of decades of experience with development and application of experience-based food security scales in North and Latin America and throughout the world.)\n \t(b) Sample size: Samples of 1000 individuals, characteristic of the GWP, 2 have proven sufficient to ensure margins of errors lower than 2% for prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity, and lower than 1% for prevalence of severe food insecurity at national level. Larger sample sizes might further reduce these margins of error.\n Coverage\n By leveraging on the GWP as a data collection vehicle, FAO can ensure global coverage (about 150 countries every year covering more than 95% of the world population) annually, for national level assessments.\n Comparability across countries\n The Voices of the Hungry project has successfully developed and tested the methodology to scale individual measures to a single global reference standard and to make estimates of the prevalence of food insecurity comparable across countries. The method is possible due to the reference to Item Response Theory for measurement and it inspired by existing practice in equating educational and psycho-attitudinal tests.\n Possibility to compute the indicator at sub-national level\n The indicators can be computed at any level of disaggregation. Reliability of the measure is of course conditioned by the available sample size and representativeness of the specific sample. FAO suggests that, for meaningful disaggregation at subnational level, the data should be collected with surveys that are designed to be representative of the target population.","While SDG target 2.1 calls for an eradication of hunger, meaningful targets that would reflect bringing food insecurity to minimal ""physiological"" levels and the eradication of hunger could be offset for moderate and severe food insecurity and for developed countries and some transition economies.\n Credible, yet ambitious targets for other countries could be defined based on an analysis of the 2014 benchmark that will be available in the first quarter of 2015.","The indicators and the global reference standard necessary to ensure proper cross-country comparability of the measures are being developed and will be maintained by the FAO Statistics Division, 'Voices of the Hungry' team.' Metadata are available at: http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/ess-fs/voices/fiesscale/metadata/en/.",,Annual,,,,,"By leveraging on the GWP as a data collection vehicle, FAO can ensure global coverage (about 150 countries every year covering more than 95% of the world population) annually, for national level assessments.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  -2.2,TRUE,2,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-2.pdf,6,"By 2030, end all forms of malnutrition, including achieving, by 2025, the internationally agreed targets on stunting and wasting in children under 5 years of age, and address the nutritional needs of adolescent girls, pregnant and lactating women and older persons.",2.2.1,Prevalence of stunting (height for age <-2 standard deviation from the median of the World Health Organization (WHO) Child Growth Standards) among children under 5 years of age,UNICEF,,Number of under-fives falling below minus 2 standard deviations from the median height-for-age of the reference population.\nChildren under 5 years of age in the surveyed population,,,,,"The target in the OWG report refers to stunting directly (i.e. By 2030, end all forms of malnutrition, including achieving, by 2025, the internationally agreed targets on stunting and wasting).","Yes, the indicator exists and is reported on annually. There is a joint country level dataset and joint global and regional estimates through collaborative effort between UNICEF-WHO and World Bank Group. Metadata are available at the UNICEF Statistics website: (uni.cf/jmedashbaord2015 ) as Excel sheets containing the associated data; and from an interactive dashboard available at the same link.","Reliability\n In general the reliability of these data are high. At the global level, the confidence intervals for stunting prevalence have averaged about +/- 2 percentage points between 1990 and 2014. At the national level, where reported, the confidence intervals for stunting prevalence are small in general. The joint dataset is being revised to include country level confidence intervals for stunting prevalence.\n Potential coverage\n At present the joint dataset contains 778 national surveys between 1983 and 2015, covering 150 countries (representing more than 90 per cent of the global under-five population). The number of national surveys is expected to increase annually and number of countries may also increase.\n Comparability across countries\n Stunting rates are computed using a global reference standard3 on child growth which ensure proper crosscountry comparability. Data accepted into the dataset have been collected and analysed using standard equipment and methods.\n Sub national data\n Subnational data are available in a majority of household surveys and UNICEF-WHO and World Bank Group have plans to publish a dataset that contains sub national estimates for the country level dataset.","As of September 2015, global and regional estimates for 2014 were released; we will release 2015 estimates in September 2016.",Reported on annually. There is a joint country level dataset and joint global and regional estimates through collaborative effort between UNICEF-WHO and World Bank Group. Metadata are available at the UNICEF Statistics website: (uni.cf/jmedashbaord2015 ) as Excel sheets containing the associated data, and from an interactive dashboard available at the same link.,,Annual,,,,,"At present the joint dataset contains 778 national surveys between 1983 and 2015, covering 150 countries (representing more than 90 per cent of the global under-five population). The number of national surveys is expected to increase annually and number of countries may also increase.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  -2.2,FALSE,2,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-2.pdf,7,"By 2030, end all forms of malnutrition, including achieving, by 2025, the internationally agreed targets on stunting and wasting in children under 5 years of age, and address the nutritional needs of adolescent girls, pregnant and lactating women and older persons.",2.2.2,"Prevalence of malnutrition (weight for height >+2 or <-2 standard deviation from the median of the WHO Child Growth Standards) among children under 5 years of age, by type (wasting and overweight)",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +2.2,TRUE,2,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-2.pdf,6,"By 2030, end all forms of malnutrition, including achieving, by 2025, the internationally agreed targets on stunting and wasting in children under 5 years of age, and address the nutritional needs of adolescent girls, pregnant and lactating women and older persons.",2.2.1,Prevalencija zaostajanja u rastu (visina za dob <-2 standardne devijacije od medijana prema Standardima rasta djece Svjetske zdravstvene organizacije (WHO)) među djecom mlađom od 5 godina,UNICEF,,Number of under-fives falling below minus 2 standard deviations from the median height-for-age of the reference population.\nChildren under 5 years of age in the surveyed population,,,,,"The target in the OWG report refers to stunting directly (i.e. By 2030, end all forms of malnutrition, including achieving, by 2025, the internationally agreed targets on stunting and wasting).","Yes, the indicator exists and is reported on annually. There is a joint country level dataset and joint global and regional estimates through collaborative effort between UNICEF-WHO and World Bank Group. Metadata are available at the UNICEF Statistics website: (uni.cf/jmedashbaord2015 ) as Excel sheets containing the associated data; and from an interactive dashboard available at the same link.","Reliability\n In general the reliability of these data are high. At the global level, the confidence intervals for stunting prevalence have averaged about +/- 2 percentage points between 1990 and 2014. At the national level, where reported, the confidence intervals for stunting prevalence are small in general. The joint dataset is being revised to include country level confidence intervals for stunting prevalence.\n Potential coverage\n At present the joint dataset contains 778 national surveys between 1983 and 2015, covering 150 countries (representing more than 90 per cent of the global under-five population). The number of national surveys is expected to increase annually and number of countries may also increase.\n Comparability across countries\n Stunting rates are computed using a global reference standard3 on child growth which ensure proper crosscountry comparability. Data accepted into the dataset have been collected and analysed using standard equipment and methods.\n Sub national data\n Subnational data are available in a majority of household surveys and UNICEF-WHO and World Bank Group have plans to publish a dataset that contains sub national estimates for the country level dataset.","As of September 2015, global and regional estimates for 2014 were released; we will release 2015 estimates in September 2016.",Reported on annually. There is a joint country level dataset and joint global and regional estimates through collaborative effort between UNICEF-WHO and World Bank Group. Metadata are available at the UNICEF Statistics website: (uni.cf/jmedashbaord2015 ) as Excel sheets containing the associated data, and from an interactive dashboard available at the same link.,,Annual,,,,,"At present the joint dataset contains 778 national surveys between 1983 and 2015, covering 150 countries (representing more than 90 per cent of the global under-five population). The number of national surveys is expected to increase annually and number of countries may also increase.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +2.2,FALSE,2,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-2.pdf,7,"By 2030, end all forms of malnutrition, including achieving, by 2025, the internationally agreed targets on stunting and wasting in children under 5 years of age, and address the nutritional needs of adolescent girls, pregnant and lactating women and older persons.",2.2.2,"Prevalencija malnutricije (težina za dob >+2 ili <-2 standardne devijacije od medijana prema Standardima rasta djece Svjetske zdravstvene organizacije (WHO)) među djecom mlađom od 5 godina, prema vrsti (pothranjenost i pretilost)",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
   2.3,TRUE,2,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-2.pdf,8,"By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers, in particular women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists and fishers, including through secure and equal access to land, other productive resources and inputs, knowledge, financial services, markets and opportunities for value addition and nonfarm employment.",2.3.1,Obujam proizvodnje po jedinici radne snage prema veličini poduzeća poljoprivredne / stočarske / šumarske proizvodnje,FAO,,"The indicator refers to the value of production per labour unit operated by small scale producers in the farming, pastoral and forestry sectors. Data will be produced by classes of enterprise size.",,,,,"The indicator is directly linked with the target's formulation. An agreed international definition of ""small scale producer"" in each sector needs to be developed.","FAO has been working in producing the indicator for agriculture using household survey data, within its program of work in ""small scale agriculture and development transformation"". To date, the indicator can be computed for nine developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, based on data collected with the LSMS-ISA surveys. Results have not been disseminated yet. Sources of information would be either agricultural surveys, or agricultural modules in integrated household surveys (e.g., LSMS-ISA) organized by the national statistical agencies, with the necessary support from the World Bank, FAO and other international agencies to ensure methodological rigor. FAO Statistics, in collaboration with IFAD and the World Bank, are working towards the establishment of a harmonized program of Agricultural and Rural Integrated Surveys (AGRIS) that could form the basis for the collection of data on this, as well as on several other SDG indicators for the agricultural sector. Through the AGRIS program, methodological guidelines will be provided to countries on how to conduct enterprise surveys in agriculture. A special effort will also be made to support countries in the actual implementation of the farm surveys. This project, as well as the partnership with IFAD, the World Bank and the countries themselves, could substantially increase the availability of data to inform this indicator in the future.","Reliability\n Reliability and accuracy of the estimates depend on sample size.\n Coverage\n Data collection or data sharing might be difficult in some countries (i.e. countries at war etc.). In general, due to the relatively high cost, a periodicity of 3-5 year is advisable.\n Sub-national estimates\n As long as farm or household level data are available, the indicator can be computed for specific population groups and geographical areas. The granularity of data disaggregation depends on the sample design and sample size in each specific country, but, in general, data can be tabulated by size of the farm, gender and age of the enterprise manager, etc.\n Comparability\n International comparability of the estimates depends on the adoption international standards. A crucial issue to be addressed concerns the appropriate definition of ""small scale"" producer based on the relevant concept of the economic size of the enterprise in each sector.","A baseline value for 2015 can be established only for a limited number of countries. A global data collection initiative needs to be launched to ensure progressively broader country coverage of the indicator.\n The target of doubling the productivity of small scale producers may be more difficult to achieve (or relevant) for developed countries, given that their productivity may already be relatively high. Its achievement in developing countries depends on a number of factors (e.g. investment in irrigation, machineries and new farming practices) that may improve labour productivity of small scale enterprises. In addition good governance and appropriate policies to promote agriculture and rural development can increase the chances that the target is reached, including by creating employment opportunities in other sectors to absorb excess supply of labour in agriculture.",,,3 - 5 years,,,,,"Data collection or data sharing might be difficult in some countries (i.e. countries at war etc.). In general, due to the relatively high cost, a periodicity of 3-5 year is advisable.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
   2.3,FALSE,2,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-2.pdf,9,"By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers, in particular women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists and fishers, including through secure and equal access to land, other productive resources and inputs, knowledge, financial services, markets and opportunities for value addition and nonfarm employment.",2.3.2,"Prosječni dohodak malih proizvođača hrane, po spolu i autohtonom statusu",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
   2.4,TRUE,2,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-2.pdf,10,"By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production, that help maintain ecosystems, that strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding and other disasters and that progressively improve land and soil quality.",2.4.1,Udio poljoprivredne površine u produktivnoj i održivoj poljoprivredi,FAO,,"The denominator, agricultural area, is a well-known and established indicator that are collected by statistical bodies in countries and compiled internationally via a questionnaire by FAO. These data are available in FAO's database FAOSTAT.\n The numerator captures the three dimensions of sustainable production: environmental, economic and social. The measurement instrument ' farm surveys ' will give countries the flexibility to identify issues related to sustainability that are most relevant to priorities/challenges within these three dimensions.\n Land under productive and sustainable agriculture will be those farms that satisfy indicators selected across all three dimension",The indicator is defined by the following formula:\n Percent of land under productive and sustainable agriculture Area under productive and sustainable agriculture divided by Agricultural area\n Where Agricultural area = arable land + permanent crops + permanent meadows and pastures,"There has been considerable discussion over the past thirty years on how to define ""sustainable agriculture."" Sustainability was often understood mainly in its environmental dimension. Yet, it is well established that sustainability needs to be considered in terms of its social, environmental and economic dimensions. The indicator has been operationalized in order to capture its multidimensional nature.\n The main points on which the indicator is based are as follows:\n \tMaintain the natural resource base in order to ensure sufficient productivity for the foreseeable future\n \tEnsure the generation of a level of income which is sufficient to keep the livelihood of the entire family steadily above the poverty line, and in accordance with the development objectives of the country.\n \tProvide access to safety nets, ensure flexibility in front of market and natural shocks and ensure clear ownership and tenure rights, with no discrimination on gender basis.\n Challenges to sustainable agriculture vary within and across countries, and by region and are affected by socio-economic and bio-physical conditions. By defining sustainability across its three dimensions, countries can select those metrics within their measurement instrument that best capture the priorities most relevant to them.\n A set of possible metrics for each sustainability dimension will be established in order to ensure relevance across the whole range of possible socio-economic and bio-physical conditions. Farm surveys will be designed on the basis of a limited set of these measurements, established at national level in order to cover the most relevant aspects of these three dimensions of sustainability. Each surveyed farm will be assessed against targets for each of these measurements, decided at national level. Farms or areas that satisfy the targets in the three dimensions would be considered as sustainable; otherwise no. Progress would be measured against a benchmark, which would show trends over time.",,,,,,,"Data on sustainable production will most likely be collected through agricultural surveys or agricultural modules in integrated household surveys organized by the national statistical agencies, with the necessary support from FAO or other international agencies to ensure methodological rigor and harmonization. It is expected that land-based measurements will be integrated and complemented by earth observation technologies, either by or under the overall supervision of national statistical agencies.",,,"As long as farm or household level data are available, the indicator can be computed for specific population groups and geographical areas. The level of disaggregation depends on the sample design and sample size in each specific country, but, in general, data can be tabulated by geographical area, size of the farm, gender and age of the enterprise manager.",Data for global and regional monitoring will be obtained from aggregation of national data. They can be complemented or enhanced by the use of well selected earth observation data.,"Data from farm surveys can be supplemented with information from other sources, including geospatial data/remote sensing or other techniques to capture environmental data. Data collection or data sharing may be difficult in some countries.",,,"The methodological development of the indicator could benefit from the support from the Global Strategy to improve agricultural and rural statistics, a program aiming at improving countries' capacities to produce agricultural and rural statistics in support to more effective food security and agricultural and rural development policies. As part of the program, FAO, in collaboration with IFAD and the World Bank, are working towards the establishment of a harmonized and cost-effective program of Agricultural and Rural Integrated Surveys (AGRIS) that could form the basis for the collection of data on indicator 2.4. Through this program, methodological guidelines on how to conduct enterprise surveys in agriculture will be developed and provided to countries, together with technical support in the implementation of the farm surveys. \n The proposed indicator for 2.4 is directly linked ' and may either draw from or provide information to ' other proposed SDG targets:",Land use data: http://faostat3.fao.org/download/R/RL/E\n Sustainable agriculture:\n \thttp://www.fao.org/sustainability/en/ \tBuilding a Common Vision for Sustainable Food and Agriculture\n Global Strategy to Improve Agricultural and Rural Statistics: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3940e.pdf,2.3,6.3,6.4,12.2,15.2,15.3,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
   2.5,FALSE,2,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-2.pdf,12,"By 2020, maintain the genetic diversity of seeds, cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals and their related wild species, including through soundly managed and diversified seed and plant banks at the national, regional and international levels, and ensure access to and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, as internationally agreed",2.5.1,Broj biljnih i životinjskih genetskih resursa za hranu i za poljoprivredu, srednjeročno ili dugoročno osigurani u odgovarajućim institucijama (uvjetima),,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
   2.5,TRUE,2,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-2.pdf,12,"By 2020, maintain the genetic diversity of seeds, cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals and their related wild species, including through soundly managed and diversified seed and plant banks at the national, regional and international levels, and ensure access to and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, as internationally agreed",2.5.2,"Udio lokalnih pasmina podjeljenih s obzirom na status zaštite: ugrožene, neugrožene i nepoznati status",FAO,,"The indicator presents the percentage of livestock breeds classified as being at risk, not at risk or of unknown risk of extinctions at a certain moment in time, as well as the trends for those percentages.\n The indicator is based on the most up to date data contained in FAO's Global Databank for Animal Genetic Resources DAD-IS (http://dad.fao.org/) at the time of calculation. Risk classes are defined based population sizes of breeds reported to DAD-IS. The risk class is considered to be ""unknown"" if (i) no population sizes are reported or (ii) the most recent population size reported refers to a year more than 10- years before the year of calculation (10 year cut off point).\n Links to official definitions/descriptions of the indicator are reported below:\n The indicator is one out of a set of 3 sub-indicators which are defined in the document CGRFA/WG-AnGR-7/12/7 ""Targets and indicators for animal genetic resources"" (http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/026/me514e.pdf) and that are endorsed in their current form by Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture at its the 14th Session (see par 28 CRRFA-14/13/Report at http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/028/mg538e.pdf). The indicator serves to monitor the implementation of the Global Plan of Action for Animal Genetic Resources. In this respect the indicator is presented in the ""Status and Trends of Animal Genetic Rescources-2014"" (see http://www.fao.org/3/a-mm278e.pdf).\n This indicator is also proposed for the Target 15.5 under SDG, and it serves also as an indicator for the Aichi Target 13 ""Genetic Diversity of Terrestrial Domesticated Animals"" under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). It is described on the webpage of the Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (BIP), a network of organizations which have come together to provide the most up-to date biodiversity information possible for tracking progress towards the Aichi Targets (http://www.bipindicators.net/domesticatedanimals). Further, it is presented in the Global Biodiversity Outlook 4, page 91 (see http://www.cbd.int/gbo/gbo4/publication/gbo4-en-lr.pdf) which is an output of the processes under the CBD.\n Risk classes are defined as follows:\n \textinct: a breed is categorized as extinct when there are no breeding males or breeding females remaining. Nevertheless, genetic material might have been cryo-conserved which would allow recreation of the breed. In reality, extinction may be realized well before the loss of the last animal or genetic material.\n \tcritical: a breed is categorized as critical if the total number of breeding females is less than or equal to 100 or the total number of breeding males is less than or equal to five; or the overall population size is less than or equal to 120 and decreasing and the percentage of females being bred to males of the same breed is below 80 percent, and it is not classified as extinct.\n \tcritical-maintained: are those critical populations for which active conservation programmes are in place or populations are maintained by commercial companies or research institutions.\n \tendangered: a breed is categorized as endangered if the total number of breeding females is greater than 100 and less than or equal to 1 000 or the total number of breeding males is less than or equal to 20 and greater than five; or the overall population size is greater than 80 and less than 100 and increasing and the percentage of females being bred to males of the same breed is above 80 percent; or the overall population size is greater than 1 000 and less than or equal to 1 200 and decreasing and the percentage of females being bred to males of the same breed is below 80 percent, and it is not assigned to any of above categories.\n \tendangered-maintained: are those endangered populations for which active conservation programmes are in place or populations are maintained by commercial companies or research institutions.\n \tbreed at risk: a breed that has been classified as either critical, critical-maintained, endangered, or endangered-maintained.",,,,,"The indicator has a direct link to ""biodiversity"" as animal or livestock genetic resources represent an integral part of agricultural ecosystems and biodiversity as such.\n Further there are indirect links to ""malnutrition"": Animal genetic resources for food and agriculture are an essential part of the biological basis for world food security, and contribute to the livelihoods of over a thousand million people. A diverse resource base is critical for human survival and well-being, and a contribution to the eradication of hunger: animal genetic resources are crucial in adapting to changing socio-economic and environmental conditions, including climate change. They are the animal breeder's raw material and amongst the farmer's most essential inputs. They are essential for sustainable agricultural production.\n No increase of the percentage of breeds being at risk or being extinct is directly related to ""halt the loss of biodiversity"".","Yes, the indicator exists. It is calculated by FAO/AGAG and reported biannually to the Commission of Genetic Resources of Food and Agriculture. The most recent report is available at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-mm278e.pdf. The links to the BIP and CBD are provided above. FAO is a partner in the BIP and provides information on the indicator directly to the partnership.\n The underlying data base DAD-IS is maintained by FAO/AGAG (see http://dad.fao.org/). The contact person for DAD-IS is Ms Roswitha Baumung. Data are officially provided by countries. Data entry is possible all over the year.\n Sustainability of the indicator production and its use within a meaningful global monitoring framework is strongly dependent on the maintenance and development of DAD-IS by FAO.","Reliability\n The reliability of measures of population size for breeds varies across countries and species (similarly to what is the case for population size of livestock species provided in CountrySTAT). However, rough estimates on country level are considered to be sufficient to reliably detect global and regional trends.\n Coverage\n The Global Databank for Animal Genetic Resources currently contains data from 182 countries and 38 species. The total number of national breed populations recorded in the Global Databank has increased dramatically since 1993 (from 2 716 national breed populations to 14 869 and from 131 countries to 182). The total number of mammalian national breed populations recorded in June 2014 was 11 062. The total number of avian national breed populations recorded in 2014 was 3 807. However, breed-related information remains far from complete. For almost 60 percent of all reported breeds, risk status is not known because of missing population data or lack of recent updates. Generally data collection should be possible in all countries. Updating of population size data at least each 10 years is needed for the definition of the risk classes.\n Comparability across countries\n Completely comparable as calculation is done in the same way for all countries and the same definitions on risk classification is applied.\n Sub-national estimates\n Sub-national estimates can be obtained with regard to the risk status of each national breed population and species. Results can be presented at the national, regional and global levels.","With regard to animal biodiversity, SDG target 2.5 has been formulated as ""...the genetic diversity of farmed and domesticated animals is maintained"" which is consistent with the target formulation of Aichi Target 13 under the CBD. However the future projections presented in the Global Biodiversity Outlook 4, Figure 131, page 91 (see http://www.cbd.int/gbo/gbo4/publication/gbo4-en-lr.pdf) suggest to maintain/halt the loss of animal biodiversity may be very challenging.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
   2.a,TRUE,2,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-2.pdf,15,"Increase investment, including through enhanced international cooperation, in rural infrastructure, agricultural research and extension services, technology development and plant and livestock gene banks in order to enhance agricultural productive capacity in developing countries, in particular least developed countries",2.a.1,Orijentacioni poljoprivredni indeks za državne izdatke,FAO,,"The Agriculture Orientation Index (AOI) for Government Expenditures is defined as the Agriculture share of Government Expenditures, divided by the Agriculture Share of GDP, where Agriculture refers to the agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting sector.\n An AOI greater than 1 reflects a higher orientation towards the agriculture sector, which receives a higher share of government spending relative to its contribution to economic value-added. An AOI less than 1 reflects a lower orientation to agriculture, while an AOI equal to 1 reflects neutrality in a government's orientation to the agriculture sector.\n Agriculture refers to the agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting sector, based on the Classification of the Functions of Government (COFOG) developed by the OECD and published by the United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD), found at http://unstats.un.org/unsd/cr/registry/regcst.asp?Cl=4&Top=1&Lg=1.\n Government expenditures are all outlays or expenses associated with supporting a particular sector or purse, including compensation of employees, and subsidies and grants paid as transfers to individuals or corporations in that sector. For a full description, see the Government Finance Statistics Manual (GFSM) 2001, developed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), found at http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/gfs/manual/.\n The Agriculture Share of GDP is measured by the ratio of Agriculture Value Added over GDP, based on official data reported by countries to the United Nations Statistics Division or to the OECD.\n The annual data and indicator, collected and compiled by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO), can be found on the FAOSTAT domain at: http://faostat3.fao.org/download/I/IG/E, covering the periods 2001- 2012.",Agriculture Share of Government Expenditures divided by Agriculture Share of GDP = AOI,,,,"Government spending in Agriculture includes spending on sector policies and programs; soil improvement and soil degradation control; irrigation and reservoirs for agricultural use; animal health management, livestock research and training in animal husbandry; marine/freshwater biological research; afforestation and other forestry projects; etc.\n Spending in these agricultural activities helps to increase sector efficiency, productivity and income growth by increasing physical or human capital and /or reducing inter-temporal budget constraints. However, the private sector typically under-invests in these activities due to the presence of market failure (e.g. the public good nature of research and development; the positive externalities from improved soil and water conditions; lack of access to competitive credit due to asymmetric information between producers and financial institutions, etc.).\n Government spending in agriculture is essential to address these market failures. This leads to several potential indicators for the SDGs, which include: a) the level of Government Expenditures in Agriculture (GEA); b) the Agriculture share of Government Expenditures, and c) the AOI for Government Expenditures.\n An indicator that measures GEA levels fails to take into account the size of an economy. If two countries, A and B, have the same level of GEA, and the same agriculture contribution to GDP, but country A's economy is 10 times that of country B. Setting the same target levels for GEA fails to take economic size into account.\n An indicator that measures the Agriculture share of Government Expenditures fails to take into the relative contributions of the agricultural sector to a country's GDP. Consider two countries with the same economic size, C and D, where agriculture contributes 2% to C's GDP, and 10% to country D's GDP. If total Government Expenditures were equal in both countries, C would experience greater relative investment in Agriculture than D. If total Government Expenditures differed, the result could be magnified or diluted.\n The AOI index takes into account a country's economic size, Agriculture's contribution to GDP, and the total amount of Government Expenditures. As such, it allows for the setting of a universal and achievable target.","The indicator is maintained and reported by FAO in FAOSTAT, with metadata soon to be available at http://faostat3.fao.org/mes/methodology_list/E.\n The underlying annual data is official country data, from 2001 to 2012, reported by countries through a questionnaire jointly developed by FAO and the IMF using the COFOG and GFSM classifications. The database currently covers 139 countries","The use of the COFOG and GFSM classifications promotes international and inter-temporal comparisons. The expenditure data reported is typically based on administrative data based on a government's public accounts, while GDP and Agriculture Value Added is based on its National Accounts. The nature of the data typically prohibits indicators at sub-national level, as most countries do no compile sub-national GDP estimates, nor sub-national Government Expenditure figures.\n Reliability\nThe numerator (Agriculture Share of Government Expenditures) is based on administrative data, which has no statistical margin of error. The denominator (Agriculture share of GDP) is based on a System of National Accounts, following international guidelines, in which either Agriculture Value-Added or GDP estimates can suffer from statistical errors, though it is difficult to measure. Errors and lack of reliability due to from non-statistical errors can arise, for example, as a result of the mapping between national concepts to international classifications (by respondents), the use of different measures of government across countries due to reporting issues (budgetary central, central, and general, as described above).\n Coverage\n It is relatively high for these particular indicators, with 139 countries included. However, some countries have not provided data for all 13 years from 2001 to 2012, and the level of government to which expenditures pertain can differ.\n Comparability across countries\n It is facilitated by use of the Agriculture share of Government Expenditures in the numerator , which mitigates difference that arise when some countries report expenditures for all levels of government, and others only for the central government. This does not rule out the fact that state and local governments may spend a different share on Agriculture than the central government. For this reason, analysis of the trends in this indicator may be more reliable, for comparison purposes, than just the indicator alone.\n While COFOG and GFSM facilitate international comparisons, not all countries report expenditures covering all three levels of government (Central, State and Municipal). The three levels of reporting include (from smallest to largest): 1) Budgetary Central Government; 2) Central Government, which includes Budgetary Central Government as well as extra-budgetary units ; and 3) General Government, which includes Central, State and Local Government. Countries that fully report General Government Expenditures may not report Central Government Expenditures.\n Since not all countries collect or share data on all three levels of reporting, the level with the most complete time series is used is used for each country. To the extent that the Agriculture share of Government Expenditures differs across levels of government (Central, State and Local), differences in this indicator may reflect differences in reporting.\n Sub-national estimates\n It is not possible to compute sub-national or population group estimates, given the nature of the underlying data.","There is no baseline value for this indicator for 2015. There is some precedent for using government expenditures as a target indicator for Agriculture. Signatories to the Maputo Declaration set a target of 10% for the Agriculture and Rural Development Share of Government Expenditures. However, as Rural Development is not a purpose listed under the COFOG classification, there has been considerable difficulty in consistently measuring this indicator. Furthermore, in setting a universal target, this Share indicator suffers from the problems listed above (comparison of economies of different size, with different levels of government expenditures, and with different agricultural shares of GDP).",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  -2.a,FALSE,2,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-2.pdf,17,"Increase investment, including through enhanced international cooperation, in rural infrastructure, agricultural research and extension services, technology development and plant and livestock gene banks in order to enhance agricultural productive capacity in developing countries, in particular least developed countries",2.a.2,Total official flows (official development assistance plus other official flows) to the agriculture sector,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  -2.b,FALSE,2,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-2.pdf,18,"Correct and prevent trade restrictions and distortions in world agricultural markets, including through the parallel elimination of all forms of agricultural export subsidies and all export measures with equivalent effect, in accordance with the mandate of the Doha Development Round.",2.b.2,Agricultural export subsidies,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +2.a,FALSE,2,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-2.pdf,17,"Increase investment, including through enhanced international cooperation, in rural infrastructure, agricultural research and extension services, technology development and plant and livestock gene banks in order to enhance agricultural productive capacity in developing countries, in particular least developed countries",2.a.2,Ukupni službeni tokovi sredstava (službena razvojna pomoć i druga službena sredstva) u sektoru poljoprivrede,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +2.b,FALSE,2,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-2.pdf,18,"Correct and prevent trade restrictions and distortions in world agricultural markets, including through the parallel elimination of all forms of agricultural export subsidies and all export measures with equivalent effect, in accordance with the mandate of the Doha Development Round.",2.b.2,Izvozne subvencije za poljoprivredne proizvode,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
   2.c,TRUE,2,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-2.pdf,19,"Adopt measures to ensure the proper functioning of food commodity markets and their derivatives and facilitate timely access to market information, including on food reserves, in order to help limit extreme food price volatility.",2.c.1,Pokazatelj nepravilnosti cijena hrane,,,"The proposed indicator of food price anomalies measures the number of ""Price Anomalies"" that occur on a given food commodity price series over a given period of time.\nConcepts\nThe volatility of a given food commodity price series is measured through the quarterly and annual Compound Growth Rates (CGR), of the monthly price level. The mean and standard deviation of the observed historic CGR values define what is considered to be ""normal""volatility for the particular price series being considered. A ""Price Anomaly"" is then defined as the recording, in a given month, of a CGR that is greater than the historic mean CGR for that month by one standard deviation or more.","Computation of the indicator requires the availability of a series of monthly prices and involves three steps.\n Step 1. Calculating the quarterly and annual compound growth rates. A CGR is the growth rate in a time series over a certain amount of time.\n It is computed as [see report].\n A quarterly CGR (CQGR) is calculated by considering periods of three months between ____ and __0, while an annual CGR (CAGR) is calculated by considering a period of 12 months. The importance to consider both CQGR and CAGR derives from the need to take into account the presence of marked seasonal variability in many agricultural prices, with prices growing more or less steadily over the year from their minimum, occurring at harvest period.\n Step 2. Calculating the weighted average and standard deviation of both CQGR and CAGR. The historic distributions of CGRs are characterized by the mean and the standard deviation of past CGR values. A different distribution of CGRs is computed per each calendar month. Time weights are used to make sure that the more recent past has a higher weight in the calculation of the mean and standard deviation of the distribution of CGRs, so that more recent price dynamics are not overshadowed by past extreme events which could prevent the detection of significant market shocks on prices. \n Step 4. Computing the indicator of price anomalies. First, the difference between the monthly CGR and the historic average CGR is computed for each month and then normalized with respect to the historic standard deviation. Based on the results, a price anomaly is recorded in each month for which the normalized difference is equal or greater than one. Then, the frequency of price anomalies is computed for both the quarterly and the annual CGRs and the final indicator of price anomalies for month t (________ ) is computed as a weighted average of the frequency of price anomalies in the quarterly CGR and the frequency of price anomalies based on the annual CGR.\n For further details, see Baquedano 2014 (2015?)","The indicator aims at capturing the occurrence of episodes of abrupt price increases that could be indicative of malfunctioning food commodity markets, and as such can be used to monitor the ""proper functioning"" of food markets, as expressed by the Target.\n Evidence from existing historic price series will need to be evaluated, on a case-by-case basis to determine which price series are more relevant in each country.\n As this is a ""means of implementation"" indicator, there should be no need to set baseline values and numerical targets to be achieved by 2030, but only to report it.",,,,,,,"Price series have been collected over the years on several food commodities in many countries to inform the FAO Food Price Monitoring and Analysis (FPMA) tool as detailed at http://www.fao.org/giews/food-prices/data-partners/en/.\n Adoption of this indicator will require that countries identify relevant, official monthly food price series to be used to inform the calculations, and that ensure data collection and publication on a monthly basis.",,,"The indicator is applicable at the level of the relevant market for which price data are available. To the extent that different price data series are available for different markets in a country (e.g., regions or main cities), it can be computed at subnational level.",The indicator can be applied also to global or regional food commodity price series on international markets.,"The indicator is based on a methodologically sound method to measure the volatility of time series of prices by controlling for the presence of long-term trends and seasonal variability that might confound other proposed simpler measures. It is particularly suited for agricultural prices whose dynamics is conditioned by the presence of annual harvest period, and marked growth during the period from one harvest to the next.\n The major limitation is linked to the need for available historic time series of monthly prices to establish the distribution of compound growth rates used to identify the occurrence of ""anomalies"". As of today, the indicator is only used by FAO Global Information and Early Warning (GIEWS). It has been tested on experimental basis in Bolivia and in Guatemala.",,,See http://www.fao.org/giews/food-prices/home/en/.,"Felix G. Baquedano. 2014. 'Developing an indicator of price anomalies as an early warning tool: A technical compendium'. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Trade and Markets Division. Global Information and Early Warning System, June 2014. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/foodprice/docs/resources/1_GIEWS%20Fo od%20Price%20Methodology.pdf\n FAO. Food Price Monitoring and Analysis (FPMA) tool http://www.fao.org/giews/food-prices/home/en/",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
   3.1,TRUE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,2,"By 2030, reduce the global Maternal mortality ratio to less than 70 per 100,000 live births.",3.1.1,Stopa maternalne smrtnosti,WHO,,"The annual number of female deaths from any cause related to or aggravated by pregnancy or its management (excluding accidental or incidental causes) during pregnancy and childbirth or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy, irrespective of the duration and site of the pregnancy, expressed per 100 000 live births, for a specified time period.","Number of maternal deaths / Number of live births \nMethod of measurement \nThe maternal mortality ratio can be calculated by dividing recorded (or estimated) maternal deaths by total recorded (or estimated) live births in the same period and multiplying by 100 000. Measurement requires information on pregnancy status, timing of death (during pregnancy, childbirth, or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy), and cause of death. \nThe maternal mortality ratio can be calculated directly from data collected through vital registration systems, household surveys or other sources. There are often data quality problems, particularly related to the underreporting and misclassification of maternal deaths. Therefore, data are often adjusted in order to take these data quality issues into account. \nBecause maternal mortality is a relatively rare event, large sample sizes are needed if household surveys are used to identify recent maternal deaths in the household (e.g. last year). This may still result in estimates with large confidence intervals, limiting the usefulness for cross_country or over_time comparisons. \nTo reduce sample size requirements, the sisterhood method used in the DHS and multiple indicator surveys (MICS4) measures maternal mortality by asking respondents about the survival of sisters. It should be noted that the sisterhood method results in pregnancy_related mortality: regardless of the cause of death, all deaths occurring during pregnancy, birth or the six weeks following the termination of the pregnancy are included in the numerator of the maternal mortality ratio. \nCensuses have also included questions about maternal deaths with variable success. \nReproductive Age Mortality Studies (RAMOS) is a special study that uses varied sources, depending on the context, to identify all deaths of women of reproductive age and ascertain which of these deaths are maternal or pregnancy_ related. \nMethod of estimation \nFor facility data_based maternal mortality, the denominator is estimated using population projections. \nWHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, the United Nations Population Division and The World Bank have developed a method to adjust existing data in order to take into account these data quality issues and ensure the comparability of different data sources. This method involves assessment of data for completeness and, where necessary, adjustment for underreporting and misclassification of deaths as well as development of estimates through statistical modelling for countries with no reliable national level data. \nData on maternal mortality and other relevant variables are obtained through databases maintained by WHO, the United Nations Population Division, UNICEF, and The World Bank. Data available from countries varies in terms of source and methods. Given the variability of the sources of data, different methods are used for each data source in order to arrive at country estimates that are comparable and permit regional and global aggregation. \nCurrently, only about one third of all countries/territories have reliable data available and do not need additional estimations. For about half of the countries included in the estimation process, country_reported estimates of maternal mortality are adjusted for the purposes of comparability of the methodologies. For the remainder of countries/territories ' those with no appropriate maternal mortality data'__'a statistical model is employed to predict maternal mortality levels. However, the calculated point estimates with this methodology might not represent the true levels of maternal mortality. It is advised to consider the estimates together with the reported uncertainty margins within which the true levels are known to lie. \nPredominant type of statistics: predicted.",,Health status,"Reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health",,,,,"Civil registration with high coverage and medical certification of cause of death and regular assessment of misreporting and underreporting. \n Household surveys, population census, sample or sentinel registration systems, special studies",,For civil registration: annual. For other sources: every 5 years or more,"Age, place of residence",,,,,,"Indicators for monitoring the Millennium Development Goals: definitions, rationale, concepts and sources. New York (NY): United Nations; 2012 (http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mi/wiki/MainPage.ashx, accessed 29 March 2015). \nWHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, The World Bank, United Nations Population Division. Trends in maternal mortality: 1990 to 2013. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014 (http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/monitoring/maternal_mortality_2013/en/, accessed 29 March 2015).'' \nWorld population prospects. New York (NY): United Nations; 2012 (http://esa.un.org/wpp/, accessed 29 March 2015).",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
   3.1,TRUE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,3,"By 2030, reduce the global maternal mortality ratio to less than 70 per 100,000 live births.",3.1.2,Udio rođenih uz pomoć stručnog zdravstvenog osoblja,WHO,,Percentage of live births attended by skilled health personnel during a specified time period.,"Number of births attended by skilled health personnel (doctors, nurses or midwives) trained in providing life_saving obstetric care, including giving the necessary supervision, care and advice to women during pregnancy, childbirth and the postpartum period, to conduct deliveries on their own, and to care for newborns / The total number of live births in the same period \nMethod of measurement \n Definition of skilled birth attendant varies between countries. The percentage of births attended by skilled health personnel is calculated as the number of births attended by skilled health personnel (doctors, nurses or midwives) expressed as a percentage of the total number of births in the same period. Births attended by skilled health personnel = (number of births attended by skilled health personnel)/(total number of live births) x 100. In household surveys, such as DHS, MICS and RHS, the respondent is asked about each live birth and who helped during delivery for a period up to five years before the interview.'' Service/facility records could be used where a high proportion of births occur in health facilities and are therefore recorded. \nMethod of estimation \nData for global monitoring are reported by UNICEF and WHO. These agencies obtain the data - both survey and registry data ' from national sources. Before data can be included in the global databases, UNICEF and WHO undertake a process of data verification that includes correspondence with field offices to clarify any questions. In terms of survey data, some survey reports may present a total percentage of births attended by a type of provider that does not conform to the MDG definition (e.g. total includes providers who are not considered skilled, such as community health workers). In this case, the percentage delivered by a physician, nurse or midwife are totalled and entered into the global database as the MDG estimate.'' Predominant type of statistics: adjusted",,Service coverage,"Reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health",,,,,Household surveys. \nRoutine facility information systems,,Biennial,"Age, parity, place of residence, socioeconomic status, type of provider \nAlso: Institutional delivery coverage (women giving birth in a health institution) among all births in the population",,,,,,"Countdown to 2015 decade report (2000_2010): taking stock of maternal, newborn and child survival. Geneva and New York (NY): World Health Organization/United Nations Children's Fund; 2010 (http://www.countdown2015mnch.org/reports_and_ articles/previous_reports/2010_decade_report, accessed 29 March 2014). \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). \nEvery newborn: an action plan to end preventable deaths. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014 (http://www.everynewborn.org/Documents/Full_action_plan_EN.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). \nIndicators for monitoring the Millennium Development Goals: definitions, rationale, concepts and sources. New York (NY): United Nations; 2012 (http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mi/wiki/MainPage.ashx, accessed 29 March 2015). \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_advance_copy.pdf, accessed 29 March 2015.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
   3.2,TRUE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,5,"By 2030, end preventable deaths of newborns and children under 5 years of age, with all countries aiming to reduce neonatal mortality to at least as low as 12 per 1,000 live births and under-5 mortality to at least as low as 25 per 1,000 live births.",3.2.1,Stopa smrtnosti djece mlađe od 5 godina,UNICEF,,"The probability of a child born in a specific year or period dying before reaching the age of 5 years, if subject to age_ specific mortality rates of that period, expressed per 1000 live births. The under_five mortality rate as defined here is, strictly speaking, not a rate (i.e. the number of deaths divided by the number of population at risk during a certain period of time) but a probability of death derived from a life table and expressed as a rate per 1000 live births.","Number of deaths among children aged 0-4 years (0-59 months of age), broken down by age groups / Number of live births \nMethod of measurement \nThe most frequently used methods using the above_mentioned data sources are as follows: \nCivil registration: Number of deaths at age 0_5 and population of the same age are used to calculate death rates which are then converted into age_specific probability of dying.\nCensus and surveys: An indirect method is used based on questions to each woman of reproductive age as to how many children she has ever given birth to and how many are still alive. The Brass method and model life tables are then used to obtain an estimate of under_five and infant mortality rates. Census often includes questions on household deaths in the last 12 months, which can be used to calculate mortality estimates.\nSurveys: A direct method is used based on birth history - a series of detailed questions on each child a woman has given birth to during her lifetime. Neonatal, post_neonatal, infant, child and under_five mortality estimates can be derived from full birth history module.\nMethod of estimation \nThe United Nation Inter_agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation (UN_IGME) produces trends of under_five mortality with a standardized methodology depending on the type and quality of source of data available. The UN IGME applies the Bayesian B_splines bias_reduction model to empirical data to derive trend estimates of under_five mortality for all countries. See the UN IGME link for details. The UN GME estimates are not necessarily the same as the official national data. \nPredominant type of statistics: adjusted and estimated.",,Health status,"Reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health",,,,,"Civil registration with high coverage. \nHousehold surveys, population censuses, sample registration systems",,"Annual if based on registration system; otherwise, less frequent (3-5 years based on surveys).''UN_IGME releases annual estimates for 195 countries.","Place of residence, sex, socioeconomic status \nAlso: by cause, including pneumonia, diarrhoea, and malaria",,,,,,"UN Inter_agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation. Levels & trends in child mortality. Report 2015. New York: UNICEF, 2015. (Available at: http://www.childmortality.org/files_v20/download/IGME%20report%202015%20child%20mortality%20final.pdf, accessed 6 October 2015) http://www.data.unicef.org/child_mortality/under_five.html http://www.childmortality.org/",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
   3.2,TRUE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,6,"By 2030, end preventable deaths of newborns and children under 5 years of age, with all countries aiming to reduce neonatal mortality to at least as low as 12 per 1,000 live births and under-5 mortality to at least as low as 25 per 1,000 live births.",3.2.2,Stopa neonatalne smrtnosti,UNICEF,,"Probability that a child born in a specific year or period will die during the first 28 completed days of life if subject to age_specific mortality rates of that period, expressed per 1000 live births. Neonatal deaths (deaths among live births during the first 28 completed days of life) may be subdivided into early neonatal deaths, occurring during the first 7 days of life, and late neonatal deaths, occurring after the 7th day but before the 28th completed day of life.","Number of children who died during the first 28 days of life / Number of live births \nMethod of measurement \nData from civil registration: The number of live births and the number of neonatal deaths are used to calculate age_ specific rates. This system provides annual data. \nData from household surveys: Calculations are based on full birth history, whereby women are asked for the date of birth of each of their children, whether each child is still alive and if not the age at death. \nMethod of estimation \nThe United Nation Inter_agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation (UN_IGME) produces neonatal mortality rate estimates with a Bayesian spline regression model which models the ratio of neonatal mortality rate / (under_five mortality rate'_'neonatal mortality rate). Estimates of NMR are obtained by recombining the estimates of the ratio with UN IGME_estimated under_five mortality rate. See UN IGME for more details. \nPredominant type of statistics: adjusted and estimated. \nThese neonatal mortality rates have been estimated by applying methods to the available data from all Member States in order to ensure comparability across countries and time; hence they are not necessarily the same as the official national data.",,Health status,"Reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health",,,,,"Civil registration with high coverage. \nHousehold surveys, sample registration systems",,"Annual if based on registration system; otherwise, less frequent (3_5 years based on surveys). UN_IGME releases annual estimates for 195 countries.","Age in days/weeks, birth weight, place of residence, sex, socioeconomic status",,,,,,"UN''Inter_agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation. Levels & trends in child mortality. Report 2015. New York: UNICEF, 2015. (Available at: \n\thttp://www.childmortality.org/files_v20/download/IGME%20report%202015%20child%20mortality%20final.pdf, accessed 6 October 2015) \nhttp://www.data.unicef.org/child_mortality/neonatal.html \nhttp://www.childmortality.org/",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  -3.3,TRUE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,7,"By 2030, end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and neglected tropical diseases and combat hepatitis, water-borne diseases and other communicable diseases.",3.3.1,"Number of new HIV infections per 1,000 uninfected population, by sex, age and key populations",WHO,UNAIDS,Number of new HIV infections per 1000 person_years among the uninfected population. The incidence rate is the number of new cases per population at risk in a given time period.,Number of people who are newly infected in a specific time period x 1000 / Total uninfected person_years of exposure \nMethod of measurement \nLongitudinal data on individuals are the best source of data but are rarely available for large populations. Special diagnostic tests in surveys or from health facilities can be used to obtain data on HIV incidence. \nHIV incidence can also be modelled using the Spectrum software. \nMethod of estimation \nModelling is currently used to estimate new infections and incidence. Prevalence data inform these models.,,Health status,Infectious disease,,,,,"Household or key population survey with HIV incidence_testing, Spectrum modelling. \nOther possible data sources Regular surveillance system among key populations",,Survey schedule, Spectrum model estimates updated every year,,"General population, Key populations (men who have sex with men, sex workers, people who inject drugs, transgender people, prisoners), Age groups (0-14, 15-24, 15-49, 50+ years), for key populations < 25, 25+ years), mode of transmission (including mother_to_child transmission), place of residence, sex",,,,,,UNAIDS''Global AIDS response progress reporting 2015: construction of core indicators for monitoring the 2011 United Nations political declaration on HIV/AIDS. Geneva: Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, 2015 http://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/JC2702_GARPR2015guidelines_en.pdf accessed 7 October 2015. \nUNAIDS website for relevant data and national Spectrum files http://aidsinfo.unaids.org/ \nConsolidated Strategic Information Guidelines for HIV in the Health Sector. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2015.http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/guidelines/strategic_information_guidelines/en/ accessed on 7 October 2015.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  -3.3,TRUE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,7,"By 2030, end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and neglected tropical diseases and combat hepatitis, water-borne diseases and other communicable diseases.",3.3.2,"Tuberculosis incidence per 100,000 population ",WHO,,"Estimated number of new and relapse TB cases (all forms of TB, including cases in people living with HIV) arising in a given year, expressed as a rate per 100 000 population.","Number of new and relapse TB cases arising in a specified time period / Number of person_years of exposure \nMethod of measurement \nDirect measurement requires high_quality surveillance systems in which underreporting is negligible, and strong health systems so that underdiagnosis is also negligible; otherwise indirect estimates based on notification data and estimates of levels of underreporting and under_diagnosis. \nMethod of estimation \nEstimates of TB incidence are produced through a consultative and analytical process led by WHO and are published annually. These estimates are based on annual case notifications, assessments of the quality and coverage of TB notification data, national surveys of the prevalence of TB disease and information from death (vital) registration systems.'' \nEstimates of incidence for each country are derived, using one or more of the following approaches depending on available data: (i) incidence = case notifications/estimated proportion of cases detected; (ii) incidence = prevalence/duration of condition; (iii) incidence = deaths/proportion of incident cases that die. \nUncertainty bounds are provided in addition to best estimates. \nDetails are available from TB impact measurement: policy and recommendations for how to assess the epidemiological burden of TB and the impact of TB control and from the online technical appendix to the WHO global tuberculosis report 2014.",,Health status,Infectious disease,,,,,High quality TB surveillance system (linked to routine facility information system). \nPopulation_based health surveys with TB diagnostic testing,,Annual,"Age, HIV status, sex''",,,,,,"Definitions and reporting framework for tuberculosis ' 2013 revision (WHO/HTM/TB/2013.2). Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013 (http://www.who.int/tb/publications/definitions/en/, accessed 29 March 2015). \nGlobal tuberculosis report 2014. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014 (http://www.who.int/tb/publications/global_report/en/, accessed 29 March 2015). \nIndicators for monitoring the Millennium Development Goals: definitions, rationale, concepts and sources. New York (NY): United Nations; 2012 (http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mi/wiki/MainPage.ashx, accessed 29 March 2015). \nWorld Health Assembly governing body documentation: official records. Geneva: World Health Organization (http://apps.who.int/gb/or/, accessed 29 March 2015).",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  -3.3,TRUE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,8,"By 2030, end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and neglected tropical diseases and combat hepatitis, water-borne diseases and other communicable diseases.",3.3.3,"Malaria incidence per 1,000 population",WHO,,Number of malaria cases per 1000 persons per year.,"Number of malaria cases / Population at risk (number of people living in areas where malaria transmission occurs) \nMethod of measurement \nComplete data on malaria cases reported through surveillance systems are the best source of data but are rarely available for large populations. Reported data on malaria cases generally need to be corrected for extent of health service use, incompleteness of reporting and lack of case confirmation. In high transmission areas with limited health service data but with good data on parasite prevalence the number of cases can be estimated from parasite prevalence.''The denominator is estimated, using risk mapping and population data. \nMethod of estimation \nWHO compiles data on reported confirmed cases of malaria, submitted by national malaria control programmes and estimates the extent of underreporting.''Where necessary the number of cases are inferred from parasite prevalence surveys.''",,Health status,Infectious disease,,,,,Surveillance systems,,Annual,"Age, sex, place of residence, season (year and month)",,,,,,"World Malaria Report 2014. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014. http://www.who.int/malaria/publications/world_malaria_report_2014/en/ \nDisease surveillance for malaria control: an operations manual. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2012 (http://www.who.int/malaria/publications/atoz/9789241503341/en/, accessed 29 March 2015). \nHousehold Survey Indicators for Malaria Control. Measure Evaluation/Measure DHS/President's Malaria Initiative/Roll Back Malaria Partnership/UNICEF/WHO. 2013 (http://www.malariasurveys.org/documents/Household%20Survey%20Indicators%20for%20Malaria%20Control.pdf, accessed 15 April 2015. \nWorld Health Assembly governing body documentation: official records. Geneva: World Health Organization (http://apps.who.int/gb/or/, accessed 29 March 2015).",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  -3.3,TRUE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,10,"By 2030, end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and neglected tropical diseases and combat hepatitis, water-borne diseases and other communicable diseases.",3.3.4,"Hepatitis B incidence per 100,000 population",WHO,,"The number of new hepatitis B infections per 100,000 population in a given year is estimated from the prevalence of total antibodies against hepatitis B core antigen (Total anti_HBc) and hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) positive among children 5 years of age, adjusted for sampling design.","Number of survey participants with Total anti_HBc and HBsAg positive test / Number in survey with Total anti_Hc/HBsAg result \nMethod of measurement \nTotal anti_HBc reflect cumulated incidence in the first five years of life while HBsAg reflect chronic infections that may evolve towards chronic liver diseases \nThe sample of the serological survey must be drawn from the specific geographic region to be verified. For example if the purpose is to estimate national transmission of HBV (including mother_to_child transmission) then the sampling should be geographically representative of the population. Convenience sampling is not appropriate. The sample size should be adequate to show with 95% confidence HBsAg prevalence of less than 1% with a precision of ' 0.5%. \nThe target age is 5_years_old. Sampling 4 ' 6 year olds may be appropriate. \nThe serosurvey is cross sectional and therefore a point estimate time. The shorter time periods of data collection are therefore preferred. \nData on HBV birth dose exposure and B3 completion are drawn from official records. Where these are not available testing for HBsAb may be considered for the serosurvey. This is less preferable as it is more costly, but can also be done in addition. \nSpecimen collection and transportation should be appropriate to minimize bias though specimen degradation in rural and remote areas. \nWhere possible, it is advantageous to collect blood specimens for ELISA laboratory testing because the accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) is higher than for rapid tests. However in some locations only rapid tests will be available hence test selection is resource dependent. This should be considered in designing overall study methodology. \nWhen an appropriate sampling strategy and size are used and quality testing assays and laboratory procedures are employed,''the HBsAg prevalence in the serosurvey should be representative of the incidence of childhood HBV transmission in the specific geographic region (or country) in this age group.",,,,,,,,Serosurvey. \n Routinely collected hepatitis B vaccine administrative coverage data including''the proportion newborn infants given the first dose within 24 hours of birth (HepB0%) and''the percentage of infants having received three doses of hepatitis B vaccine (HepB3 %),,"Intermittent, dependent on population seroprevalence of HBsAg before hepatitis B immunization and infant hepatitis B vaccination coverage","Dependent on sampling methodology. Place of residence, exposure to the birth dose hepatitis B vaccine (official records), exposure to three doses of hepatitis B vaccine",,,,,,Hepatitis B Control Through Immunization: a Reference Guide http://iris.wpro.who.int/bitstream/10665.1/10820/3/9789290616696_eng.pdf \nDocumenting the Impact of Hepatitis B Immunization: best practices for conducting a serosurvey http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2011/WHO_IVB_11.08_eng.pdf \nSample design and procedures for Hepatitis B immunization surveys: A companion to the WHO cluster survey reference manual http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2011/WHO_IVB_11.12_eng.pdf,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  -3.3,FALSE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,11,"By 2030, end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and neglected tropical diseases and combat hepatitis, water-borne diseases and other communicable diseases.",3.3.5,Number of people requiring interventions against neglected tropical diseases,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +3.3,TRUE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,7,"By 2030, end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and neglected tropical diseases and combat hepatitis, water-borne diseases and other communicable diseases.",3.3.1,"Broj novih slučajeva zaraze HIV-om na 1 000 nezaraženih osoba, prema spolu, dobi i ključnoj populaciji",WHO,UNAIDS,Number of new HIV infections per 1000 person_years among the uninfected population. The incidence rate is the number of new cases per population at risk in a given time period.,Number of people who are newly infected in a specific time period x 1000 / Total uninfected person_years of exposure \nMethod of measurement \nLongitudinal data on individuals are the best source of data but are rarely available for large populations. Special diagnostic tests in surveys or from health facilities can be used to obtain data on HIV incidence. \nHIV incidence can also be modelled using the Spectrum software. \nMethod of estimation \nModelling is currently used to estimate new infections and incidence. Prevalence data inform these models.,,Health status,Infectious disease,,,,,"Household or key population survey with HIV incidence_testing, Spectrum modelling. \nOther possible data sources Regular surveillance system among key populations",,Survey schedule, Spectrum model estimates updated every year,,"General population, Key populations (men who have sex with men, sex workers, people who inject drugs, transgender people, prisoners), Age groups (0-14, 15-24, 15-49, 50+ years), for key populations < 25, 25+ years), mode of transmission (including mother_to_child transmission), place of residence, sex",,,,,,UNAIDS''Global AIDS response progress reporting 2015: construction of core indicators for monitoring the 2011 United Nations political declaration on HIV/AIDS. Geneva: Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, 2015 http://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/JC2702_GARPR2015guidelines_en.pdf accessed 7 October 2015. \nUNAIDS website for relevant data and national Spectrum files http://aidsinfo.unaids.org/ \nConsolidated Strategic Information Guidelines for HIV in the Health Sector. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2015.http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/guidelines/strategic_information_guidelines/en/ accessed on 7 October 2015.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +3.3,TRUE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,7,"By 2030, end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and neglected tropical diseases and combat hepatitis, water-borne diseases and other communicable diseases.",3.3.2,Incidencija tuberkuloze na 100 000 stanovnika,WHO,,"Estimated number of new and relapse TB cases (all forms of TB, including cases in people living with HIV) arising in a given year, expressed as a rate per 100 000 population.","Number of new and relapse TB cases arising in a specified time period / Number of person_years of exposure \nMethod of measurement \nDirect measurement requires high_quality surveillance systems in which underreporting is negligible, and strong health systems so that underdiagnosis is also negligible; otherwise indirect estimates based on notification data and estimates of levels of underreporting and under_diagnosis. \nMethod of estimation \nEstimates of TB incidence are produced through a consultative and analytical process led by WHO and are published annually. These estimates are based on annual case notifications, assessments of the quality and coverage of TB notification data, national surveys of the prevalence of TB disease and information from death (vital) registration systems.'' \nEstimates of incidence for each country are derived, using one or more of the following approaches depending on available data: (i) incidence = case notifications/estimated proportion of cases detected; (ii) incidence = prevalence/duration of condition; (iii) incidence = deaths/proportion of incident cases that die. \nUncertainty bounds are provided in addition to best estimates. \nDetails are available from TB impact measurement: policy and recommendations for how to assess the epidemiological burden of TB and the impact of TB control and from the online technical appendix to the WHO global tuberculosis report 2014.",,Health status,Infectious disease,,,,,High quality TB surveillance system (linked to routine facility information system). \nPopulation_based health surveys with TB diagnostic testing,,Annual,"Age, HIV status, sex''",,,,,,"Definitions and reporting framework for tuberculosis ' 2013 revision (WHO/HTM/TB/2013.2). Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013 (http://www.who.int/tb/publications/definitions/en/, accessed 29 March 2015). \nGlobal tuberculosis report 2014. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014 (http://www.who.int/tb/publications/global_report/en/, accessed 29 March 2015). \nIndicators for monitoring the Millennium Development Goals: definitions, rationale, concepts and sources. New York (NY): United Nations; 2012 (http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mi/wiki/MainPage.ashx, accessed 29 March 2015). \nWorld Health Assembly governing body documentation: official records. Geneva: World Health Organization (http://apps.who.int/gb/or/, accessed 29 March 2015).",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +3.3,TRUE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,8,"By 2030, end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and neglected tropical diseases and combat hepatitis, water-borne diseases and other communicable diseases.",3.3.3,Incidencija malarije na 1 000 stanovnika,WHO,,Number of malaria cases per 1000 persons per year.,"Number of malaria cases / Population at risk (number of people living in areas where malaria transmission occurs) \nMethod of measurement \nComplete data on malaria cases reported through surveillance systems are the best source of data but are rarely available for large populations. Reported data on malaria cases generally need to be corrected for extent of health service use, incompleteness of reporting and lack of case confirmation. In high transmission areas with limited health service data but with good data on parasite prevalence the number of cases can be estimated from parasite prevalence.''The denominator is estimated, using risk mapping and population data. \nMethod of estimation \nWHO compiles data on reported confirmed cases of malaria, submitted by national malaria control programmes and estimates the extent of underreporting.''Where necessary the number of cases are inferred from parasite prevalence surveys.''",,Health status,Infectious disease,,,,,Surveillance systems,,Annual,"Age, sex, place of residence, season (year and month)",,,,,,"World Malaria Report 2014. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014. http://www.who.int/malaria/publications/world_malaria_report_2014/en/ \nDisease surveillance for malaria control: an operations manual. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2012 (http://www.who.int/malaria/publications/atoz/9789241503341/en/, accessed 29 March 2015). \nHousehold Survey Indicators for Malaria Control. Measure Evaluation/Measure DHS/President's Malaria Initiative/Roll Back Malaria Partnership/UNICEF/WHO. 2013 (http://www.malariasurveys.org/documents/Household%20Survey%20Indicators%20for%20Malaria%20Control.pdf, accessed 15 April 2015. \nWorld Health Assembly governing body documentation: official records. Geneva: World Health Organization (http://apps.who.int/gb/or/, accessed 29 March 2015).",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +3.3,TRUE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,10,"By 2030, end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and neglected tropical diseases and combat hepatitis, water-borne diseases and other communicable diseases.",3.3.4,Incidencija hepatitisa B na 100 000 stanovnika,WHO,,"The number of new hepatitis B infections per 100,000 population in a given year is estimated from the prevalence of total antibodies against hepatitis B core antigen (Total anti_HBc) and hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) positive among children 5 years of age, adjusted for sampling design.","Number of survey participants with Total anti_HBc and HBsAg positive test / Number in survey with Total anti_Hc/HBsAg result \nMethod of measurement \nTotal anti_HBc reflect cumulated incidence in the first five years of life while HBsAg reflect chronic infections that may evolve towards chronic liver diseases \nThe sample of the serological survey must be drawn from the specific geographic region to be verified. For example if the purpose is to estimate national transmission of HBV (including mother_to_child transmission) then the sampling should be geographically representative of the population. Convenience sampling is not appropriate. The sample size should be adequate to show with 95% confidence HBsAg prevalence of less than 1% with a precision of ' 0.5%. \nThe target age is 5_years_old. Sampling 4 ' 6 year olds may be appropriate. \nThe serosurvey is cross sectional and therefore a point estimate time. The shorter time periods of data collection are therefore preferred. \nData on HBV birth dose exposure and B3 completion are drawn from official records. Where these are not available testing for HBsAb may be considered for the serosurvey. This is less preferable as it is more costly, but can also be done in addition. \nSpecimen collection and transportation should be appropriate to minimize bias though specimen degradation in rural and remote areas. \nWhere possible, it is advantageous to collect blood specimens for ELISA laboratory testing because the accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) is higher than for rapid tests. However in some locations only rapid tests will be available hence test selection is resource dependent. This should be considered in designing overall study methodology. \nWhen an appropriate sampling strategy and size are used and quality testing assays and laboratory procedures are employed,''the HBsAg prevalence in the serosurvey should be representative of the incidence of childhood HBV transmission in the specific geographic region (or country) in this age group.",,,,,,,,Serosurvey. \n Routinely collected hepatitis B vaccine administrative coverage data including''the proportion newborn infants given the first dose within 24 hours of birth (HepB0%) and''the percentage of infants having received three doses of hepatitis B vaccine (HepB3 %),,"Intermittent, dependent on population seroprevalence of HBsAg before hepatitis B immunization and infant hepatitis B vaccination coverage","Dependent on sampling methodology. Place of residence, exposure to the birth dose hepatitis B vaccine (official records), exposure to three doses of hepatitis B vaccine",,,,,,Hepatitis B Control Through Immunization: a Reference Guide http://iris.wpro.who.int/bitstream/10665.1/10820/3/9789290616696_eng.pdf \nDocumenting the Impact of Hepatitis B Immunization: best practices for conducting a serosurvey http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2011/WHO_IVB_11.08_eng.pdf \nSample design and procedures for Hepatitis B immunization surveys: A companion to the WHO cluster survey reference manual http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2011/WHO_IVB_11.12_eng.pdf,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +3.3,FALSE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,11,"By 2030, end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and neglected tropical diseases and combat hepatitis, water-borne diseases and other communicable diseases.",3.3.5,Broj osoba koje su zatražile intervencije protiv zanemarenih tropskih bolesti,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
   3.4,TRUE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,12,"By 2030, reduce by one third premature mortality from noncommunicable diseases through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being.",3.4.1,"Stopa smrtnosti od kardiovaskularnih bolesti, raka, dijabetesa ili kroničnih bolesti dišnog sustava",WHO,,"Unconditional probability of dying between the exact ages of 30 and 70 years from cardiovascular diseases, cancer, diabetes or chronic respiratory diseases.","Number of deaths between ages 30 and 70 years due to the four causes / Number of years of exposure. \nMethod of measurement \nDeaths from these four causes will be based on the following ICD codes: 100-I99, COO-C97, E10-E14 and J30-J98. \nMethod of estimation \nModelling, using multiple inputs, is often used if no complete and accurate data are available. \nAge standardization is done for comparability over time and between populations.",,Health status,NCDs,,,,,Civil registration and vital statistics systems. \nPopulation_based health surveys with verbal autopsy,,Annual if civil registration data, otherwise every 3-5 years,"Place of residence, sex, socioeconomic status",,,,,,"Draft comprehensive global monitoring framework and targets for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases, including a set of indicators. Agenda item A66/8, Sixty_sixth World Health Assembly, 20'28 May 2013. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013 (http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA66/A66_8_en.pdf?ua=1, 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). \nWorld health statistics 2014. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014 (http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/112738/1/9789240692671_eng.pdf?ua=1, accessed 29 March 2015).",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
   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,Stopa samoubojstava,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  -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,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +3.5,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,"Obuhvat tretmanskim intervencijama (farmakološkim, psihosocijalnim i rehabilitacijskim te uslugama skrbi nakon tretmana) poremećaja uzrokovanih uporabom supstanci",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,Potrošnja alkohola po stanovniku (u dobi od 15 godina i više) u kalendarskoj godini izražena u litrama čistog alkohola,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +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,Stopa poginulih u cestovnim prometnim nesrećama,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,Udio žena fertilne dobi (od 15 do 49 godina) koje planiraju obitelj suvremenim metodama,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,"Stopa nataliteta među adolescenticama (starosti 10-14 godina; starosti 15-19 godina) na 1,000 žena u toj dobnoj skupini",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).",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  -3.8,FALSE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,34,"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.",3.8.2,Proportion of population with large household expenditures on health as a share of total household expenditure or income,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  -3.9,FALSE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,35,"By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.",3.9.1,Mortality rate attributed to household and ambient air pollution,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  -3.9,FALSE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,35,"By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.",3.9.2,"Mortality rate attributed to unsafe water, unsafe sanitation and lack of hygiene (exposure to unsafe Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for All (WASH) services)",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  -3.9,FALSE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,35,"By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.",3.9.3,Mortality rate attributed to unintentional poisoning,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  -3.a,TRUE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,36,"Strengthen the implementation of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in all countries, as appropriate.",3.a.1,Age-standardized prevalence of current tobacco use among persons aged 15 years and older,WHO,,"Age_standardized prevalence of current tobacco use among persons aged 18+ years. 'Smoked tobacco products' include the consumption of cigarettes, bidis, cigars, cheroots, pipes, shisha (water pipes), fine_cut smoking articles (roll_your_own), krekets, and any other form of smoked tobacco. \n""Smokeless tobacco"" includes moist snuff, plug, creamy snuff, dissolvables, dry snuff, gul, loose leaf, red tooth powder, snus, chimo, gutkha, khaini, gudakhu, zarda, quiwam, dohra, tuibur, nasway, naas/naswar, shammah, betel quid, toombak, pan (betel quid), iq'mik, mishri, tapkeer, tombol and any other tobacco product that is sniffed, held in the mouth, or chewed.","Number of current tobacco users aged 18+ years. ""Current users"" include both daily and non_daily users of smoked or smokeless tobacco / All respondents of the survey aged 18+ years \nMethod of estimation \nNumber of respondents aged 18+ years currently using any tobacco product (smoked or smokeless)/(number of survey respondents aged 18+ years) x 100.",,Risk factors,NCDs and nutrition,,,,,Population_based (preferably nationally representative) survey,,At least every 5 years,"Age, sex, other relevant sociodemographic stratifiers where available",,,,,,"Draft comprehensive global monitoring framework and targets for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases, including a set of indicators. Agenda item A66/8, Sixty_sixth World Health Assembly, 20'28 May 2013. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013 (http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA66/A66_8_en.pdf?ua=1, accessed 29 March 2015). \nGlobal estimate of the burden of disease from second_hand smoke. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  -3.b,TRUE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,37,"Support the research and development of vaccines and medicines for the communicable and non-communicable diseases that primarily affect developing countries, provide access to affordable essential medicines and vaccines, in accordance with the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, which affirms the right of developing countries to use to the full the provisions in the Agreement on TradeRelated Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights regarding flexibilities to protect public health, and, in particular, provide access to medicines for all.",3.b.1,Proportion of the target population covered by all vaccines included in their national programme,WHO,,Percentage of health facilities with essential medicines and life_saving commodities,"Number of facilities with essential medicines in stock / Total number of health facilities \nMethod of measurement \nStock out data may also refer to specific time period (1 month, 3 months). Data on the availability of a specific list of medicines are collected from a survey of a sample of facilities. Availability is reported as the percentage of medicine outlets where a particular medicine was found on the day of the survey. Health facility reports may also include stockouts indicators but require regular independent verification.",,Health systems,HSS,,,,,Special facility surveys.\nRoutine facility information systems.,,Annual or biannual,"Facility type, facility managing authority (public/private), specific type of medicine/commodity (e.g. priority medicines for women and children, vaccines, ART, family planning, essential NCD medicines)'' \nWHO_recommended essential core list of medicines: bronchodilator inhaler, steroid inhaler, glibenclamide, metformin, insulin, angiotensin_converting_enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, calcium channel blocker, statin, aspirin, thiazide diuretic, beta_ blocker, omeprazole tablet, diazepam injection, fluoxetine tablet, haloperidol tablet, carbamazepine tablet, amoxicillin tablet/capsule, amoxicillin suspension, ampicillin injection, ceftriaxone injection, gentamicin injection, oral rehydration salts, zinc sulfate.'' \nEssential NCD medicines: at least aspirin, a statin, an ACE inhibitor, thiazide diuretic, a long_acting calcium channel blocker, metformin, insulin, a bronchodilator and a steroid inhalant. \nPriority medicines for women and children: amoxicillin tablet/capsule, amoxicillin suspension, ampicillin injection, ceftriaxone injection, gentamicin injection, oral rehydration salts, zinc sulphate, oxytocin injection, magnesium sulphate injection. \nSuggested core list of medicines for pricing/affordability surveys: Salbutamol inhaler 100 mcg per dose (200 doses); beclometasone inhaler 100 mcg/dose (200 doses); glibenclamide 5 mg tablet; metformin 500 mg tablet; insulin regular 100 IU/ml, 10 ml vial; enalapril 5 mg tablet; amlodipine 5 mg tablet; simvastatin 20 mg tablet; aspirin 100 mg tablet; hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg tablet; carvedilol 12.5 mg tablet; omeprazole 20 mg tablet; diazepam 10 mg/2 ml injection; fluoxetine 20 mg tablet; haloperidol 5 mg tablet; carbamazepine 200 mg tablet; amoxicillin 500 mg capsule/tablet; amoxicillin 250 mg/5 ml suspension; ampicillin 500 mg injection; ceftriaxone 1 G vial; gentamicin 80 mg/2 ml injection; oral rehydration salts (sachet for 1 litre); zinc sulfate 2 0mg tablet; oxytocin injection (5 or 10 iu); magnesium sulfate 50% injection 10 ml vial.",,,,,,"Draft comprehensive global monitoring framework and targets for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases, including a set of indicators. Agenda item A66/8, Sixty_sixth World Health Assembly, 20'28 May 2013. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013 (http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA66/A66_8_en.pdf?ua=1, accessed 29 March 2015). \nIndicators for monitoring the Millennium Development Goals: definitions, rationale, concepts and sources. New York (NY): United Nations; 2012 (http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mi/wiki/MainPage.ashx, accessed 29 March 2015). \nMonitoring the building blocks of health systems: a handbook of indicators and their measurement strategies. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010 (http://www.who.int/healthinfo/systems/WHO_MBHSS_2010_full_web.pdf?ua=1, accessed 29 March 2015).Framework 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).",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  -3.b,TRUE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,38,"Support the research and development of vaccines and medicines for the communicable and non-communicable diseases that primarily affect developing countries, provide access to affordable essential medicines and vaccines, in accordance with the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, which affirms the right of developing countries to use to the full the provisions in the Agreement on TradeRelated Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights regarding flexibilities to protect public health, and, in particular, provide access to medicines for all.",3.b.2,Total net official development assistance to medical research and basic health sectors,OECD,,Total net official development assistance (ODA) to the medical research (purpose code 12182) and basic health (code 122) sectors. Data expressed in US dollars at the average annual exchange rate.,,"ODA is the accepted measure of international development co-operation. Separate data are available on aid to medical research for the benefit of developing countries and on aid in support of basic health interventions, but the total of the two most closely matches the target.",,,,,,,Data are compiled by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development from returns submitted by its member countries and other aid providers.,,,"The data are generally obtained on an activity level, and include numerous parameters. They can thus be disaggregated by provider and recipient country; by type of finance, and by type of resources provided. Some data are also available on the policy objectives targeted by individual projects.","Data are available for essentially all high-income countries, and for an increasing number of middle-income aid providers.","The data only address international concessional flows provided by governments. Detailed, internationally comparable sectoral information on other support to health in developing countries is generally lacking.","The data include a ""gender equality"" marker which identifies individual projects that have a clear gender dimension.",,"See ""Aid to Health""","Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, 2013, Financing Global Health",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  -3.b,FALSE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,38,"Support the research and development of vaccines and medicines for the communicable and non-communicable diseases that primarily affect developing countries, provide access to affordable essential medicines and vaccines, in accordance with the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, which affirms the right of developing countries to use to the full the provisions in the Agreement on TradeRelated Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights regarding flexibilities to protect public health, and, in particular, provide access to medicines for all.",3.b.3,Proportion of health facilities that have a core set of relevant essential medicines available and affordable on a sustainable basis,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  -3.c,TRUE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,40,"Substantially increase health financing and the recruitment, development, training and retention of the health workforce in developing countries, especially in least developed countries and small island developing States.",3.c.1,Health worker density and distribution,WHO,,Number of health workers per 1000 population.'',"Number of health workers by cadre / Total population \nMethod of measurement \nNational database or registry of health workers, preferably at individual level. \Method of estimation \nIf there is a national database or registry, there should be regular assessment of completeness using census data, professional association registers, facility censuses, etc. \nHealth worker concentration: percentage of all health workers working in urban areas divided by percentage of total population in urban areas.",,Health systems,HSS,,,,,Health worker registry.\nNational health workforce database (aggregate).,,Annual,"By cadre, including generalist medical practitioners, specialist medical practitioners (surgeons, anaesthetists, obstetricians, emergency medicine specialists, cardiologists, paediatricians, psychiatrists, ophthalmologists, gynaecologists, etc.), nursing and midwifery professionals, traditional and complementary medicine professionals, among others. \nDistribution: place of employment (urban/rural), subnational (district)",,,,,,"Framework 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%20foll ow_up%20to%20the%20PoA%20of%20the%20ICPD.pdf, accessed 19 August 2014).'' \nHandbook on monitoring and evaluation of human resources for health with special focus on low_'and middle_income countries. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2009. \nMonitoring the building blocks of health systems: a handbook of indicators and their measurement strategies. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010 (http://www.who.int/healthinfo/systems/WHO_MBHSS_2010_full_web.pdf?ua=1, accessed 29 March 2015). \nWorld health statistics 2014. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014 (http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/112738/1/9789240692671_eng.pdf?ua=1, accessed 29 March 2015)",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  -3.d,TRUE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,42,"Strengthen the capacity of all countries, in particular developing countries, for early warning, risk reduction and management of national and global health risks.",3.d.1,International Health Regulations (IHR) capacity and health emergency preparedness,WHO,,"Percentage of attributes of 13 core capacities that have been attained at a specific point in time. The 13 core capacities are: (1) National legislation, policy and financing; (2) Coordination and National Focal Point communications; (3) Surveillance; (4) Response; (5) Preparedness; (6) Risk communication; (7) Human resources; (8) Laboratory; (9) Points of entry; (10) Zoonotic events; (11) Food safety; (12) Chemical events; (13) Radionuclear emergencies.",Number of attributes attained / Total number of attributes \nMethod of measurement \nt Based on a set of attributes of 13 core capacities from a standard WHO instrument.,,Health systems,HSS,,,,,Key informant survey,,Biannual,,,,,,,"IHR core capacity monitoring framework: checklist and indicators for monitoring progress in the development of IHR core capacities in States Parties. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013 (http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/84933/1/WHO_HSE_GCR_2013.2_eng.pdf, accessed 29 March 2015). \nWorld Health Assembly governing body documentation: official records. Geneva: World Health Organization (http://apps.who.int/gb/or/, accessed 29 March 2015).",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  -4.1,TRUE,4,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-4.pdf,2,"By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes.",4.1.1,"Proportion of children and young people: (a) in grades 2/3; (b) at the end of primary; and (c) at the end of lower secondary achieving at least a minimum proficiency level in (i) reading and (ii) mathematics, by sex",UNESCO,,"Percentage of children and young people at the end of primary and lower secondary levels of education achieving at least a minimum proficiency level in (a) reading and (b) mathematics. The minimum proficiency level will be measured relative to new common reading and numeracy scales currently in development. The indicator is calculated as the number of children and young people at the end of primary or lower secondary education achieving or exceeding the minimum proficiency level in the given subject, expressed as a percentage of all children and young people at the end of primary or lower secondary education.",,The indicator is a direct measure of the learning outcomes achieved in the two subject areas at the end of the relevant levels of education.,,,,,,,"Various international assessments (e.g., PIRLS, PISA, TIMSS), regional learning assessments (e.g., LLECE, SACMEQ, PASEC), national and citizen-led learning assessments. While common scales are being developed, monitoring based on the results of individual studies will be necessary.",,,,"Cross-nationally comparable data are currently available within international and regional learning assessments, which provide the basis for global comparison. However, until the common learning scales are established, the results could not be considered comparable across different assessments. The development of the common learning scales which allows these linkages is underway and are expected to be available within 3-5 years (i.e., by 2020).","While data from many national assessments are available now, the proposed methodology represents a substantial step forward by using existing data to create global estimates. Since assessments are typically administered within school systems, the available indicators cover only those in school. Extending the assessment of competencies to children and young people who are out of school would require household-based types of surveys. Adding individual assessment of learning to such surveys is under consideration but may be very costly and difficult to administer, and unlikely to be available on the scale needed within the next 3-5 years. The calculation of this indicator requires specific information on the ages of children participating in assessments to create globally comparable data. This makes the calculation of the indicator even more challenging.",The indicator will be disaggregated by sex and other relevant characteristics enabling a more thorough analysis of the disparities in learning outcomes between the sexes.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  -4.2,TRUE,4,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-4.pdf,3,"By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care and pre-primary education so that they are ready for primary education.",4.2.1,"Proportion of children under 5 years of age who are developmentally on track in health, learning and psychosocial well-being, by sex",UNESCO,UNICEF,"From UNESCO:\nThe percentage of children at the start of primary school, typically age 6 years in many countries, who demonstrate age-appropriate health, learning and psychosocial well-being and possess the necessary competencies and knowledge required for learning in the early primary grades. The age at which children start primary school varies across countries. This means that the indicator may broadly reflect children's development between about five and seven years of age.\n\nFrom UNICEF: \nThis indicator provides the proportion of children under the age of five who are developmentally on track in health, learning and psychosocial well-being. It is calculated by dividing the number of children under the age of five who are developmentally on track in health, learning and psychosocial well-being by the total number of children under the age of five in the population.",,"From UNESCO:\nThe indicator is a broad measure of children's development and their preparedness to begin school. Available data for global tracking is presently collected from individual-level data reported by care-givers or teachers, which is then used to calculate an indicator that represents a composite measure across a range of agreed characteristics in the areas of health, learning and psychosocial well-being.\n\nFrom UNICEF: \nEarly childhood development sets the stage for life-long thriving. Investing in ECD is one of the most critical and cost-effective ways to improve adult health, education and productivity. ECD is equity from the start and provides a good indication of national development and efforts to improve ECD can bring about human, social and economic improvements for both individuals and societies.",,,,,,,"From UNESCO:\nOne possible source is the Early Childhood Development Index from UNICEF's Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS). In addition, there are several regional- and national-level assessments that are also being explored.\n\nFrom UNICEF: \nHousehold surveys such as UNICEF-supported MICS have been collecting data on this indicator (through the Early Childhood Development Index or ECDI) in low- and middle-income countries since around 2010. Many of the individual items included in the ECDI are collected through other mechanisms in high-income (OECD) countries as well.",,,"From UNICEF: \nData are available by age, sex, place of residence, wealth quintiles and other background characteristics. When used in conjunction with a module on child disability, data can also be disaggregated by disability statics.","From UNESCO:\nCross-nationally comparable data are currently available for c30 developing countries. Further work is required to agree on levels of achievement in each developmental area, to standardise the method of calculation and extend coverage to more countries. This is expected to take 3-5 years to achieve (i.e., by 2020).\n\nFrom UNICEF: \nUNICEF has estimates for the percentage children under the age of five who are developmentally on track in health, learning and psychosocial well-being by country and for some (flexible) regional groupings with sufficient population coverage. Comparable data are currently available for approximately 60 countries.","From UNESCO:\nFurther developmental work will be needed to ensure that the proposed measures are relevant to children in all parts of the world, and measure the skills and competencies that are most important for early school participation and learning. This is expected to take 1-3 years to achieve (i.e., by 2018).\n\nFrom UNICEF: \nExisting data collection mechanisms are already in place for many countries to monitor this indicator although the ECDI in itself is a fairly new measure of child development.","From UNESCO:\nThe indicator will be disaggregated by sex and other relevant characteristics enabling a more thorough analysis of the disparities between the sexes.\n\nFrom UNICEF: \nAs this indicator is disaggregated by sex, it is well-suited for analysis of gender equality issues.",,,From UNICEF: \n UNICEF website on child developmental status data: http://data.unicef.org/ecd/development-status.html \nUNICEF 2014 brochure ' Early Childhood Development: A Statistical Snapshot - Building Better Brains and Sustainable Outcomes for Children: http://data.unicef.org/corecode/uploads/document6/uploaded_pdfs/corecode/ECD_Brochure_2014 _197.pdf,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  -4.2,FALSE,4,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-4.pdf,5,"By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care and pre-primary education so that they are ready for primary education.",4.2.2,"Participation rate in organized learning (one year before the official primary entry age), by sex",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +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,Pokrivenost osnovnih zdravstvenih usluga,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).",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +3.8,FALSE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,34,"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.",3.8.2,Udio stanovnika s velikim izdacima za zdravstvo kao udio u ukupnim izdacima ili dohotku kućanstva,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +3.9,FALSE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,35,"By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.",3.9.1,Stopa smrtnosti zbog onečišćenja zraka u kućanstvu ili okolini,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +3.9,FALSE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,35,"By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.",3.9.2,"Stopa smrtnosti zbog onečišćenja vode te loših sanitarnih i higijenskih uvjeta (nedostatak usluga WASH - pitke vode, prikladnih sanitarnih i higijenskih uvjeta)",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +3.9,FALSE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,35,"By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.",3.9.3,Stopa smrtnosti zbog nenamjernog trovanja,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +3.a,TRUE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,36,"Strengthen the implementation of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in all countries, as appropriate.",3.a.1,Dobno standardizirana prevalencija pušenja duhana među osobama u dobi od 15 godina i više,WHO,,"Age_standardized prevalence of current tobacco use among persons aged 18+ years. 'Smoked tobacco products' include the consumption of cigarettes, bidis, cigars, cheroots, pipes, shisha (water pipes), fine_cut smoking articles (roll_your_own), krekets, and any other form of smoked tobacco. \n""Smokeless tobacco"" includes moist snuff, plug, creamy snuff, dissolvables, dry snuff, gul, loose leaf, red tooth powder, snus, chimo, gutkha, khaini, gudakhu, zarda, quiwam, dohra, tuibur, nasway, naas/naswar, shammah, betel quid, toombak, pan (betel quid), iq'mik, mishri, tapkeer, tombol and any other tobacco product that is sniffed, held in the mouth, or chewed.","Number of current tobacco users aged 18+ years. ""Current users"" include both daily and non_daily users of smoked or smokeless tobacco / All respondents of the survey aged 18+ years \nMethod of estimation \nNumber of respondents aged 18+ years currently using any tobacco product (smoked or smokeless)/(number of survey respondents aged 18+ years) x 100.",,Risk factors,NCDs and nutrition,,,,,Population_based (preferably nationally representative) survey,,At least every 5 years,"Age, sex, other relevant sociodemographic stratifiers where available",,,,,,"Draft comprehensive global monitoring framework and targets for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases, including a set of indicators. Agenda item A66/8, Sixty_sixth World Health Assembly, 20'28 May 2013. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013 (http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA66/A66_8_en.pdf?ua=1, accessed 29 March 2015). \nGlobal estimate of the burden of disease from second_hand smoke. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +3.b,TRUE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,37,"Support the research and development of vaccines and medicines for the communicable and non-communicable diseases that primarily affect developing countries, provide access to affordable essential medicines and vaccines, in accordance with the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, which affirms the right of developing countries to use to the full the provisions in the Agreement on TradeRelated Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights regarding flexibilities to protect public health, and, in particular, provide access to medicines for all.",3.b.1,Udio ciljne populacije cijepljene svim cjepivima uključenim u njihov nacionalni program,WHO,,Percentage of health facilities with essential medicines and life_saving commodities,"Number of facilities with essential medicines in stock / Total number of health facilities \nMethod of measurement \nStock out data may also refer to specific time period (1 month, 3 months). Data on the availability of a specific list of medicines are collected from a survey of a sample of facilities. Availability is reported as the percentage of medicine outlets where a particular medicine was found on the day of the survey. Health facility reports may also include stockouts indicators but require regular independent verification.",,Health systems,HSS,,,,,Special facility surveys.\nRoutine facility information systems.,,Annual or biannual,"Facility type, facility managing authority (public/private), specific type of medicine/commodity (e.g. priority medicines for women and children, vaccines, ART, family planning, essential NCD medicines)'' \nWHO_recommended essential core list of medicines: bronchodilator inhaler, steroid inhaler, glibenclamide, metformin, insulin, angiotensin_converting_enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, calcium channel blocker, statin, aspirin, thiazide diuretic, beta_ blocker, omeprazole tablet, diazepam injection, fluoxetine tablet, haloperidol tablet, carbamazepine tablet, amoxicillin tablet/capsule, amoxicillin suspension, ampicillin injection, ceftriaxone injection, gentamicin injection, oral rehydration salts, zinc sulfate.'' \nEssential NCD medicines: at least aspirin, a statin, an ACE inhibitor, thiazide diuretic, a long_acting calcium channel blocker, metformin, insulin, a bronchodilator and a steroid inhalant. \nPriority medicines for women and children: amoxicillin tablet/capsule, amoxicillin suspension, ampicillin injection, ceftriaxone injection, gentamicin injection, oral rehydration salts, zinc sulphate, oxytocin injection, magnesium sulphate injection. \nSuggested core list of medicines for pricing/affordability surveys: Salbutamol inhaler 100 mcg per dose (200 doses); beclometasone inhaler 100 mcg/dose (200 doses); glibenclamide 5 mg tablet; metformin 500 mg tablet; insulin regular 100 IU/ml, 10 ml vial; enalapril 5 mg tablet; amlodipine 5 mg tablet; simvastatin 20 mg tablet; aspirin 100 mg tablet; hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg tablet; carvedilol 12.5 mg tablet; omeprazole 20 mg tablet; diazepam 10 mg/2 ml injection; fluoxetine 20 mg tablet; haloperidol 5 mg tablet; carbamazepine 200 mg tablet; amoxicillin 500 mg capsule/tablet; amoxicillin 250 mg/5 ml suspension; ampicillin 500 mg injection; ceftriaxone 1 G vial; gentamicin 80 mg/2 ml injection; oral rehydration salts (sachet for 1 litre); zinc sulfate 2 0mg tablet; oxytocin injection (5 or 10 iu); magnesium sulfate 50% injection 10 ml vial.",,,,,,"Draft comprehensive global monitoring framework and targets for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases, including a set of indicators. Agenda item A66/8, Sixty_sixth World Health Assembly, 20'28 May 2013. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013 (http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA66/A66_8_en.pdf?ua=1, accessed 29 March 2015). \nIndicators for monitoring the Millennium Development Goals: definitions, rationale, concepts and sources. New York (NY): United Nations; 2012 (http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mi/wiki/MainPage.ashx, accessed 29 March 2015). \nMonitoring the building blocks of health systems: a handbook of indicators and their measurement strategies. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010 (http://www.who.int/healthinfo/systems/WHO_MBHSS_2010_full_web.pdf?ua=1, accessed 29 March 2015).Framework 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).",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +3.b,TRUE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,38,"Support the research and development of vaccines and medicines for the communicable and non-communicable diseases that primarily affect developing countries, provide access to affordable essential medicines and vaccines, in accordance with the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, which affirms the right of developing countries to use to the full the provisions in the Agreement on TradeRelated Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights regarding flexibilities to protect public health, and, in particular, provide access to medicines for all.",3.b.2,Ukupna neto službena razvojna pomoć za medicinska istraživanja i osnovne zdravstvene sektore,OECD,,Total net official development assistance (ODA) to the medical research (purpose code 12182) and basic health (code 122) sectors. Data expressed in US dollars at the average annual exchange rate.,,"ODA is the accepted measure of international development co-operation. Separate data are available on aid to medical research for the benefit of developing countries and on aid in support of basic health interventions, but the total of the two most closely matches the target.",,,,,,,Data are compiled by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development from returns submitted by its member countries and other aid providers.,,,"The data are generally obtained on an activity level, and include numerous parameters. They can thus be disaggregated by provider and recipient country; by type of finance, and by type of resources provided. Some data are also available on the policy objectives targeted by individual projects.","Data are available for essentially all high-income countries, and for an increasing number of middle-income aid providers.","The data only address international concessional flows provided by governments. Detailed, internationally comparable sectoral information on other support to health in developing countries is generally lacking.","The data include a ""gender equality"" marker which identifies individual projects that have a clear gender dimension.",,"See ""Aid to Health""","Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, 2013, Financing Global Health",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +3.b,FALSE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,38,"Support the research and development of vaccines and medicines for the communicable and non-communicable diseases that primarily affect developing countries, provide access to affordable essential medicines and vaccines, in accordance with the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, which affirms the right of developing countries to use to the full the provisions in the Agreement on TradeRelated Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights regarding flexibilities to protect public health, and, in particular, provide access to medicines for all.",3.b.3,Udio zdravstvenih ustanova koje imaju osnovni skup relevantnih neophodnih lijekova koji su dostupni i pristupačni na održivoj osnovi,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +3.c,TRUE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,40,"Substantially increase health financing and the recruitment, development, training and retention of the health workforce in developing countries, especially in least developed countries and small island developing States.",3.c.1,Raspodjela i omjer broja zdravstvenih radnika prema populaciji,WHO,,Number of health workers per 1000 population.'',"Number of health workers by cadre / Total population \nMethod of measurement \nNational database or registry of health workers, preferably at individual level. \Method of estimation \nIf there is a national database or registry, there should be regular assessment of completeness using census data, professional association registers, facility censuses, etc. \nHealth worker concentration: percentage of all health workers working in urban areas divided by percentage of total population in urban areas.",,Health systems,HSS,,,,,Health worker registry.\nNational health workforce database (aggregate).,,Annual,"By cadre, including generalist medical practitioners, specialist medical practitioners (surgeons, anaesthetists, obstetricians, emergency medicine specialists, cardiologists, paediatricians, psychiatrists, ophthalmologists, gynaecologists, etc.), nursing and midwifery professionals, traditional and complementary medicine professionals, among others. \nDistribution: place of employment (urban/rural), subnational (district)",,,,,,"Framework 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%20foll ow_up%20to%20the%20PoA%20of%20the%20ICPD.pdf, accessed 19 August 2014).'' \nHandbook on monitoring and evaluation of human resources for health with special focus on low_'and middle_income countries. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2009. \nMonitoring the building blocks of health systems: a handbook of indicators and their measurement strategies. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010 (http://www.who.int/healthinfo/systems/WHO_MBHSS_2010_full_web.pdf?ua=1, accessed 29 March 2015). \nWorld health statistics 2014. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014 (http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/112738/1/9789240692671_eng.pdf?ua=1, accessed 29 March 2015)",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +3.d,TRUE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,42,"Strengthen the capacity of all countries, in particular developing countries, for early warning, risk reduction and management of national and global health risks.",3.d.1,Međunarodni zdravstveni propisi (IHR) i spremnost na hitne slučajeve u zdravstvu,WHO,,"Percentage of attributes of 13 core capacities that have been attained at a specific point in time. The 13 core capacities are: (1) National legislation, policy and financing; (2) Coordination and National Focal Point communications; (3) Surveillance; (4) Response; (5) Preparedness; (6) Risk communication; (7) Human resources; (8) Laboratory; (9) Points of entry; (10) Zoonotic events; (11) Food safety; (12) Chemical events; (13) Radionuclear emergencies.",Number of attributes attained / Total number of attributes \nMethod of measurement \nt Based on a set of attributes of 13 core capacities from a standard WHO instrument.,,Health systems,HSS,,,,,Key informant survey,,Biannual,,,,,,,"IHR core capacity monitoring framework: checklist and indicators for monitoring progress in the development of IHR core capacities in States Parties. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013 (http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/84933/1/WHO_HSE_GCR_2013.2_eng.pdf, accessed 29 March 2015). \nWorld Health Assembly governing body documentation: official records. Geneva: World Health Organization (http://apps.who.int/gb/or/, accessed 29 March 2015).",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +4.1,TRUE,4,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-4.pdf,2,"By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes.",4.1.1,"Udio djece i mladih: (a) u 2./3. razredu; (b) na kraju osnovnog obrazovanja; i (c) na kraju nižeg srednjeg obrazovanja, koji su postigli barem osnovnu razinu znanja (i) čitanja i (ii) matematike, prema spolu",UNESCO,,"Percentage of children and young people at the end of primary and lower secondary levels of education achieving at least a minimum proficiency level in (a) reading and (b) mathematics. The minimum proficiency level will be measured relative to new common reading and numeracy scales currently in development. The indicator is calculated as the number of children and young people at the end of primary or lower secondary education achieving or exceeding the minimum proficiency level in the given subject, expressed as a percentage of all children and young people at the end of primary or lower secondary education.",,The indicator is a direct measure of the learning outcomes achieved in the two subject areas at the end of the relevant levels of education.,,,,,,,"Various international assessments (e.g., PIRLS, PISA, TIMSS), regional learning assessments (e.g., LLECE, SACMEQ, PASEC), national and citizen-led learning assessments. While common scales are being developed, monitoring based on the results of individual studies will be necessary.",,,,"Cross-nationally comparable data are currently available within international and regional learning assessments, which provide the basis for global comparison. However, until the common learning scales are established, the results could not be considered comparable across different assessments. The development of the common learning scales which allows these linkages is underway and are expected to be available within 3-5 years (i.e., by 2020).","While data from many national assessments are available now, the proposed methodology represents a substantial step forward by using existing data to create global estimates. Since assessments are typically administered within school systems, the available indicators cover only those in school. Extending the assessment of competencies to children and young people who are out of school would require household-based types of surveys. Adding individual assessment of learning to such surveys is under consideration but may be very costly and difficult to administer, and unlikely to be available on the scale needed within the next 3-5 years. The calculation of this indicator requires specific information on the ages of children participating in assessments to create globally comparable data. This makes the calculation of the indicator even more challenging.",The indicator will be disaggregated by sex and other relevant characteristics enabling a more thorough analysis of the disparities in learning outcomes between the sexes.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +4.2,TRUE,4,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-4.pdf,3,"By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care and pre-primary education so that they are ready for primary education.",4.2.1,"Udio djece u dobi od 24 do 59 mjeseci koja se pravilno razvijaju u smislu zdravlja, obrazovanja i psiho-socijalnog blagostanja, prema spolu",UNESCO,UNICEF,"From UNESCO:\nThe percentage of children at the start of primary school, typically age 6 years in many countries, who demonstrate age-appropriate health, learning and psychosocial well-being and possess the necessary competencies and knowledge required for learning in the early primary grades. The age at which children start primary school varies across countries. This means that the indicator may broadly reflect children's development between about five and seven years of age.\n\nFrom UNICEF: \nThis indicator provides the proportion of children under the age of five who are developmentally on track in health, learning and psychosocial well-being. It is calculated by dividing the number of children under the age of five who are developmentally on track in health, learning and psychosocial well-being by the total number of children under the age of five in the population.",,"From UNESCO:\nThe indicator is a broad measure of children's development and their preparedness to begin school. Available data for global tracking is presently collected from individual-level data reported by care-givers or teachers, which is then used to calculate an indicator that represents a composite measure across a range of agreed characteristics in the areas of health, learning and psychosocial well-being.\n\nFrom UNICEF: \nEarly childhood development sets the stage for life-long thriving. Investing in ECD is one of the most critical and cost-effective ways to improve adult health, education and productivity. ECD is equity from the start and provides a good indication of national development and efforts to improve ECD can bring about human, social and economic improvements for both individuals and societies.",,,,,,,"From UNESCO:\nOne possible source is the Early Childhood Development Index from UNICEF's Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS). In addition, there are several regional- and national-level assessments that are also being explored.\n\nFrom UNICEF: \nHousehold surveys such as UNICEF-supported MICS have been collecting data on this indicator (through the Early Childhood Development Index or ECDI) in low- and middle-income countries since around 2010. Many of the individual items included in the ECDI are collected through other mechanisms in high-income (OECD) countries as well.",,,"From UNICEF: \nData are available by age, sex, place of residence, wealth quintiles and other background characteristics. When used in conjunction with a module on child disability, data can also be disaggregated by disability statics.","From UNESCO:\nCross-nationally comparable data are currently available for c30 developing countries. Further work is required to agree on levels of achievement in each developmental area, to standardise the method of calculation and extend coverage to more countries. This is expected to take 3-5 years to achieve (i.e., by 2020).\n\nFrom UNICEF: \nUNICEF has estimates for the percentage children under the age of five who are developmentally on track in health, learning and psychosocial well-being by country and for some (flexible) regional groupings with sufficient population coverage. Comparable data are currently available for approximately 60 countries.","From UNESCO:\nFurther developmental work will be needed to ensure that the proposed measures are relevant to children in all parts of the world, and measure the skills and competencies that are most important for early school participation and learning. This is expected to take 1-3 years to achieve (i.e., by 2018).\n\nFrom UNICEF: \nExisting data collection mechanisms are already in place for many countries to monitor this indicator although the ECDI in itself is a fairly new measure of child development.","From UNESCO:\nThe indicator will be disaggregated by sex and other relevant characteristics enabling a more thorough analysis of the disparities between the sexes.\n\nFrom UNICEF: \nAs this indicator is disaggregated by sex, it is well-suited for analysis of gender equality issues.",,,From UNICEF: \n UNICEF website on child developmental status data: http://data.unicef.org/ecd/development-status.html \nUNICEF 2014 brochure ' Early Childhood Development: A Statistical Snapshot - Building Better Brains and Sustainable Outcomes for Children: http://data.unicef.org/corecode/uploads/document6/uploaded_pdfs/corecode/ECD_Brochure_2014 _197.pdf,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +4.2,FALSE,4,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-4.pdf,5,"By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care and pre-primary education so that they are ready for primary education.",4.2.2,"Stopa sudjelovanja u organiziranim oblicima učenja (godinu dana prije službene dobi za upis u osnovnu školu), prema spolu",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
   4.3,TRUE,4,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-4.pdf,6,"By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university.",4.3.1,"Stopa sudjelovanja mladih i odraslih u formalnom i neformalnom obrazovanju i osposobljavanju u prethodnih 12 mjeseci, prema spolu",UNESCO,,"The percentage of youth and adults in a given age range (e.g. 15-24 years, 25-64 years etc.) participating in formal or non-formal education or training in a given time period (e.g. last 12 months). Ideally, the indicator should be disaggregated by types of programme such as TVET, tertiary education, adult education and other relevant types and cover both formal and non-formal programmes.",,The indicator measures youth and adults' access to education and training for a recent time period.,,,,,,,Household surveys which collect retrospective data on the participation of young people and adults in education or training programmes in a specified period in the recent past (usually the last 12 months).,,,,"Cross-nationally comparable data are currently available from the European Union's Adult Education Survey (AES) for c30 countries in Europe. Further work is required to develop a set of questions to be applied in labour force or other surveys globally, as well as to harmonise the questions already existing in several national household surveys on adult education attendance. This is expected to take 1-3 years to achieve.","The indicator measures the percentage of youth and adults who had access to education and training but not the amount of training received. More work is needed to ensure consistent definitions of adult education across surveys, and to clarify the comparability of different forms of adult education. Capturing the diversity of adult education and training, both formal and non-formal, represents a challenge in ensuring the comparability of this indicator across countries.","The indicator will be disaggregated by sex, age group, type of programme and other relevant characteristics enabling a more thorough analysis of the disparities between the sexes.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
   4.4,TRUE,4,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-4.pdf,7,"By 2030, substantially increase the number of youth and adults who have relevant skills, including technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship.",4.4.1,"Udio mladih i odraslih s vještinama vezanim uz informacijsko-komunikacijsku tehnologiju (IKT), prema vrsti vještine",UNESCO,,"The percentage of youth (aged 15-24 years) and adults (aged 15 years and above) that have undertaken certain computer-related activities in a given time period (e.g. last three months). Computer-related activities to measure ICT skills are as follows:\n \n\tCopying or moving a file or folder \n\tUsing copy and paste tools to duplicate or move information within a document \n\tSending e-mails with attached files (e.g. document, picture, video) \n\tUsing basic arithmetic formulae in a spreadsheet \n\tConnecting and installing new devices (e.g. a modem, camera, printer) \n\tFinding, downloading, installing and configuring software \n\tCreating electronic presentations with presentation software (including text, images, sound, video or charts) \n\tTransferring files between a computer and other devices \n\tWriting a computer program using a specialized programming language \nA computer refers to a desktop computer, a laptop (portable) computer or a tablet (or similar handheld computer). It does not include equipment with some embedded computing abilities, such as smart TV sets, and devices with telephony as their primary function, such as smartphones. \nMost individuals will have carried out more than one activity and therefore multiple responses are expected. The tasks are broadly ordered from less to more complex.",,"ICT skills determine the effective use that is made of ICTs. The lack of such skills continues to be one of the key barriers keeping people, and in particular women, from fully benefitting from the potential of information and communication technologies. This indicator will help make the link between ICT usage and impact and help measure and track the level of proficiency of ICT users.",,,,,,,Household surveys which collect data on the use of selected ICT skills.,,,,"By 2015, data for this indicator were available for only 3 developing countries although OECD countries have been collecting data for this indicator for a number of years. Since this indicator was only added to the Partnership's Core List of Indicators in 2014, more countries are expected to collect data in the near future.","Household surveys which collect data on the use of selected ICT skills.This indicator is relatively new but based on an internationally agreed definition and methodology, which have been developed under the coordination of International Telecommunications Union (ITU), through its Expert Groups and following an extensive consultation process with countries. It is also one of the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development's Core List of Indicators, which was endorsed by the UN Statistical Commission in 2014. \nThe indicator is based on the responses provided by interviewees regarding certain computer-related activities that they have carried out in a reference period of time. However, it is not a direct assessment of skills nor how or if those activities were undertaken effectively.",The indicator will be disaggregated by sex and other relevant characteristics enabling a more thorough analysis of the disparities between the sexes.,,,ITU Manual for Measuring ICT Access and Use by Households and Individuals 2014.\nhttp://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/publications/manual2014.aspx,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  -4.5,TRUE,4,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-4.pdf,9,"By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations.",4.5.1,"Parity indices (female/male, rural/urban, bottom/top wealth quintile and others such as disability status, indigenous peoples and conflict-affected, as data become available) for all education indicators on this list that can be disaggregated",UNESCO,,"Parity indices require no additional data than the specific disaggregations of interest. They are simply the ratio of the indicator value for one group to that of the other. Typically, the likely more disadvantaged group is the numerator. A value of exactly 1 indicates parity between the two groups.",,"The further from 1 the parity index lies, the greater the disparity between the two groups of interest (but see the comments and limitations section for further information).",,,,,,,The sources are the same as for the underlying indicators for this goal.,,,,The availability of parity indices for regional and global monitoring is the same as for the underlying indicators for this goal.,The indicator is not symmetrical about 1 but a simple transformation can make it so (by inverting ratios that exceed 1 and subtracting them from 2). This will make interpretation easier.,"Gender parity indices are one type of parity index which will be calculated. It is also possible to calculate a sex-based parity index for other disaggregations by dividing the female value of the disaggregation of interest (e.g., rural females) by the male value (e.g. urban males) to better analyse multiple disparities.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  -4.6,TRUE,4,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-4.pdf,10,"By 2030, ensure that all youth and a substantial proportion of adults, both men and women, and achieve literacy and numeracy.",4.6.1,"Proportion of population in a given age group achieving at least a fixed level of proficiency in functional (a) literacy and (b) numeracy skills, by sex",UNESCO,OECD,"From UNESCO:\nThe percentage of youth (aged 15-24 years) and of adults (aged 15 years and above) who achieve or exceed a given level of proficiency in (a) literacy and (b) numeracy.\n\nFrom OECD:\nAssessment of the proficiency of adults (16-65 year olds) in the domains of literacy, numeracy and problem solving in technology-rich environments. One hour cognitive assessment plus a background questionnaire of around 30-45 minutes.",,From UNESCO:\nThe indicator is a direct measure of the skill levels of youth and adults in the two areas.\n\nFrom OECD:\nProvide estimates of the level and distribution of key information processing skills among the adult population and better understand the links between these skills and their antecedents and outcomes.,,,,,,,"From UNESCO:\nThis indicator is collected via skills' assessment surveys of the adult population.\n\nFrom OECD:\nNon-institutionalised adults (aged 16-65 years) resident in the country. Minimum sample size = 5,000. ",,,,"From UNESCO: \nCurrently data are available for 33 mostly high-income countries from OECD's Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC). Similar information is available for (urban areas of) of 13 low- and middle-income countries from the World Bank's STEP Skills Measurement Program. These data sources are not directly comparable, but can be used to generate nationally- and regionally-specific estimates of the degree to which adults possess basic skills. Considerable work is required to develop a cost-effective module that can be integrated into national and international surveys. This is expected to take 3-5 years to achieve (i.e., by 2020). From OECD: \n33 countries have implemented PIAAC.","From UNESCO: \nThe measurement of youth and adult skills requires some form of direct assessment. Using household surveys to measure learning can be costly and difficult to administer, and may underestimate learning in areas that are critical to daily life but are harder to assess in standardised approaches. The result may be inaccurate representations of what youth and adults know and can do, especially in relation to applying skills that may vary across contexts. From OECD: \nParticipating countries and economies are mostly high income countries.","From UNESCO: \n The indicator will be disaggregated by sex and other relevant characteristics enabling a more thorough analysis of the disparities between the sexes. From OECD: \nAll measures can be disaggregated across gender, differences can be analysed and studied in detail.",,From OECD: \nSee PIAAC technical report and policy publications,From OECD: \nPIAAC website: http://www.oecd.org/site/piaac/ ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  -4.7,FALSE,4,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-4.pdf,11,"By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture's contribution to sustainable development.",4.7.1,"Extent to which (i) global citizenship education and (ii) education for sustainable development, including gender equality and human rights, are mainstreamed at all levels in: (a) national education policies, (b) curricula, (c) teacher education and (d) student assessment",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  -4.a,TRUE,4,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-4.pdf,12,"Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all.",4.a.1,Proportion of schools with access to: (a) electricity (b) the Internet for pedagogical purposes (c) computers for pedagogical purposes (d) adapted infrastructure and materials for students with disabilities (e) basic drinking water (f) single-sex basic sanitation facilities (g) basic handwashing facilities (as per the WASH indicator definitions),UNESCO,,"The percentage of schools by level of education (primary, lower secondary and upper secondary) with access to the given facility or service. Internet for pedagogical purposes is defined as Internet that is available for enhancing teaching and learning and is accessible by pupils. Internet for pedagogical purposes is defined as a worldwide interconnected computer network, which provides pupils access to a number of communication services including the World Wide Web and carries e-mail, news, entertainment and data files, irrespective of the device used (i.e. not assumed to be only via a computer) and thus can also be accessed by mobile telephone, tablet, PDA, games machine, digital TV etc.). Access can be via a fixed narrowband, fixed broadband, or via mobile network. Basic drinking water is defined as a functional drinking water source (MDG 'improved' categories) on or near the premises and water points accessible to all users during school hours. Basic sanitation facilities are defined as functional sanitation facilities (MDG 'improved' categories) separated for males and females on or near the premises. Basic handwashing facilities are defined as functional handwashing facilities, soap (or ash) and water available to all girls and boys. The component on adapted infrastructure and materials is yet to be developed.",,The indicator measures access in schools to key basic services necessary to ensure a safe and effective learning environment for all students.,,,,,,,Administrative data from schools and other providers of education or training.,,,,"Cross-nationally comparable data on electricity are available for c95 countries, for Internet access for c70 countries and for water and sanitation for c100 countries. Further efforts will be required to apply the WASH definitions fully and extend coverage to more countries. This is expected to take 1-3 years (i.e. by 2018). Major preparatory work will be required to develop an approach on the assessment of school conditions for people with disabilities. This is expected to take 3-5 years (i.e. by 2020).",The indicator measures the existence in schools of the given service but not its quality or operational state.,Adequate access to single-sex toilets and hand-washing facilities is vital for ensuring a safe environment especially for girls in school.,,,"WASH 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 \nFor Computers and Internet for pedagogical purposes, see Guide to Measuring Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in Education, UIS Technical Paper No. 2. (http://www.uis.unesco.org/Library/Documents/ICT_Guide_EN_v19_reprintwc.pdf)",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  -4.b,TRUE,4,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-4.pdf,14,"By 2020, substantially expand globally the number of scholarships available to developing countries, in particular least developed countries, small island developing States and African countries, for enrolment in higher education, including vocational training and information and communications technology, technical, engineering and scientific programmes, in developed countries and other developing countries.",4.b.1,Volume of official development assistance flows for scholarships by sector and type of study,OECD,,Total net official development assistance (ODA,http://www.oecd.org/dac/dac-glossary.htm#ODA) for scholarships and student costs in donor countries (types of aid,http://www.oecd.org/investment/stats/44479737.pdf, E01 and E02). Data expressed in US dollars at the average annual exchange rate.,,ODA is the accepted measure of international development co-operation. The data thus cover official international assistance to provide education places for developing country nationals in donor country educational institutions.,,,,,,,"Data are compiled by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development from returns submitted by its member countries and other aid providers. Data can be accessed here, http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/data.htm.",,,"The data can be disaggregated by provider and recipient country, and essentially concern grants.","Data are available for essentially all high-income countries, and for an increasing number of middleincome aid providers.","The data only address international concessional flows provided by governments. Detailed, internationally comparable data on scholarships for developing country nationals provided by universities, colleges, foundations, NGOs and other sources is generally lacking.","Most scholarship programmes take account of gender issues in selecting students, but generalised data on the breakdown by sex of beneficiaries is not available.",,See Aid to education (http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/documentupload/Aid%20to%20Education%20data%20to%202011-13%20.pdf) data.,"OECD, 2015 Aid to Education (http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/education.htm)",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  -4.c,TRUE,4,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-4.pdf,15,"By 2030, substantially increase the supply of qualified teachers, including through international cooperation for teacher training in developing countries, especially least developed countries and small island developing States.",4.c.1,Percentage of teachers in: (a) pre-primary (b) primary (c) lower secondary and (d) upper secondary education who have received at least the minimum organized teacher training (i.e. pedagogical training) pre-service or in-service required for teaching at the relevant level in a given country,UNESCO,OECD,"From UNESCO: \n The percentage of teachers by level of education taught (pre-primary, primary, lower secondary and upper secondary) who have received at least the minimum organized pedagogical teacher training pre-service and in-service required for teaching at the relevant level in a given country. The indicator should be calculated separately for public and private institutions. \n\nFrom OECD: \nTeachers (ISCED 2 level) were asked to indicate whether they had participated in any of the following activities 12 months prior to the survey: \n\tCourses/workshops (on subject matter or methods and/or other education-related topics). \n\tEducation conferences or seminars (where teachers and/or researchers present their research results and discuss education problems). \n\tObservation visits to other schools. \n\tObservation visits to business premises, public organisations, or non-governmental organisations. \n\tIn-service training courses in business premises, public organisations or non-governmental organisations. \n\tQualification programmes (e.g. a degree programme). \n\tParticipation in a network of teachers formed specifically for the professional development of teachers. \n\tIndividual or collaborative research on a topic of professional interest. \n\tMentoring and/or peer observation and coaching as part of a formal school arrangement",,"From UNESCO: \n Teachers play a key role in ensuring the quality of education provided. Ideally all teachers should receive adequate, appropriate and relevant pedagogical training to teach at the chosen level of education and be academically well-qualified in the subject(s) they are expected to teach. This indicator measures the share of the teaching work force which is pedagogically well-trained. \n\nFrom OECD: \nTo provide policy-relevant analysis on teachers' participation in professional development activities through a robust indicator.",,,,,,,"From UNESCO: \n Administrative data from schools and other organized learning centres. \n\nFrom OECD: \nInternational target population: Lower secondary education teachers and leaders of mainstream schools. \nTarget sample size: 200 schools per country; 20 teachers and 1 school leader in each school. School samples: Representative samples of schools and teachers within schools. \nTarget response rates: 75% of the sampled schools, together with a 75% response rate from all sampled teachers in the country. A school is considered to have responded if 50% of sampled teachers respond. \nSeparate questionnaires for teachers and school leaders, each requiring between 45 and 60 minutes to complete.",,,From OECD: \n\tBy type and intensity \n\tBy teacher and school characteristics \n\tBy reported financial cost \n\tBy lack of support \n\tBy other types of barriers,"From UNESCO: \nData have been collected for a number of years and are currently available for about 100 countries. \n\nFrom OECD: \n34 countries participate in TALIS 2013: \n\t24 OECD countries: Alberta (Canada), Australia, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, England (United Kingdom), Estonia, Finland, Flanders (Belgium), France, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, United States. \n\t10 Partner Economies: Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates), Brazil, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Latvia, Malaysia, Romania, Serbia, Singapore. \n\tFor TALIS 2018, the country coverage is expected to be wider tan 2013","From UNESCO: \n It is important to note that national minimum training requirements can vary widely from one country to the next. This variability between countries lessens the usefulness of global tracking because the indicator would only show the percent reaching national standards, not whether teachers in different countries have similar levels of training. Further work would be required if a common standard for teacher training is to be applied across countries. \n\nFrom OECD: \nA difference should be made between access to professional development activities and the participation rate in professional development activities",From UNESCO: \n The indicator will be disaggregated by sex enabling a more thorough analysis of the disparities between the sexes. \n\nFrom OECD: \nData are disaggregated by gender. Overall slightly greater participation for women (largest difference in favour of female teachers in Italy and Slovak Republic), in favour of male teachers the highest rate Abu Dhabi (UAE), in some countries equal participation.,,"From OECD: \nOECD (2014), TALIS 2013 Technical Report, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris. \nOECD (2009), Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris. \nDOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264068780-en","From OECD: \n OECD (2014), TALIS 2013 Results: An International Perspective on Teaching and Learning, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris. \nDOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264196261-en",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  -5.1,TRUE,5,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-5.pdf,2,End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere.,5.1.1,"Da li postoje pravni okviri za promicanje, jačanje i praćenje jednakosti i nediskriminacije na temelju spola",UN-WOMEN,,"The indicator measures whether national laws exist to promote gender equality and non-discrimination against women and girls. Areas of law to be monitored as part of this indicator are tentative but could include: whether equal pay for work of equal value is guaranteed in law; whether national legislation is in line with International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 183 on maternity protection; whether national law prohibits discrimination based on a definition of discrimination against women in accordance with article 1 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW); whether the national law provides equal rights for women and men with respect to inheritance and property; and the existence of laws (including criminal) against sexual assault. \nFor each area of law under consideration, the indicator is the number of countries with specific legislation to promote gender equality and non-discrimination (i.e. countries with 'yes') as a percentage of all countries with available data. A simple aggregation method (e.g. arithmetic or geometric mean) will then be used to calculate global and/or regional averages (taking into account all of the different areas of laws).",,"Laws and justice systems shape society by ensuring accountability, stopping the abuse of power and creating norms about what is acceptable. Removing discriminatory laws and putting in place laws and policies that promote gender equality is a prerequisite to ending discrimination against women and girls. \nBecause this indicator monitors laws, it focuses on de-jure equality between women and men and girls and boys and instances where legal frameworks promote gender equality and women's empowerment. This is not to say that de-facto inequality should not be prioritized. In fact, even where discrimination is explicitly prohibited by law, unequal outcomes between women and men and boys and girls can be the result of discriminatory practices that prevent women and girls from enjoying their human rights. \nMost of the indicators proposed to monitor the targets in SDG5 and the genderrelated indicators to monitor the targets in the other goals focus on outcomes. By focusing on laws, it is possible to juxtapose the different areas of law that are measured under 5.1 (e.g. laws to prevent sexual assault) to the actual 'results' (rates of sexual violence against women and girls as measured in target 5.2). Therefore, the proposed focus on laws and policies is meant to complement the outcome indicators proposed under the other targets in Goal 5 and the gender-related targets in other goals.",,,,,,,"The CEDAW Committee, UN Women and the Office for the High Commissioner for data collection Human Rights (OHCHR) have formed a working group to develop a methodology for collecting and monitoring this indicator. It is envisaged that the CEDAW Committee will monitor the indicator in a systematic and comparable manner as part of its country reporting and review process. The data source would be country reporting and review process under CEDAW.",,,,The indicator is currently classified as Tier III.,"The indicator measures means, not outcomes. However, the overarching and allencompassing nature of the target makes it difficult to measure using a single indicator. Therefore the indicator is a proxy measure and only addresses part of the target. The proposed focus on laws and policies can however be useful to complement the outcome indicators proposed under the other targets in Goal 5 and the gender-related targets in other goals.",Discrimination against women and girls takes many different forms. It can be found in law or in practice, both forms impede the realization of gender equality and women's empowerment.,,189 States are party to the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. A country becomes a State party by ratifying or acceding to the Convention and thereby accepting a legal obligation to counteract discrimination against women. The Committee monitors the implementation of national measures to fulfill this obligation.,http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/econvention.htm \nhttp://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/committee.htm,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +4.5,TRUE,4,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-4.pdf,9,"By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations.",4.5.1,"Indeksi pariteta (žene/muškarci, ruralna/urbana područja, najniži/najviši kvintil blagostanja i ostalih kao što su invaliditet, autohtonost stanovništva i pogođenost sukobima, ovisno o dostupnosti podataka) za sve pokazatelje obrazovanja s ovog popisa koje je moguće razvrstati",UNESCO,,"Parity indices require no additional data than the specific disaggregations of interest. They are simply the ratio of the indicator value for one group to that of the other. Typically, the likely more disadvantaged group is the numerator. A value of exactly 1 indicates parity between the two groups.",,"The further from 1 the parity index lies, the greater the disparity between the two groups of interest (but see the comments and limitations section for further information).",,,,,,,The sources are the same as for the underlying indicators for this goal.,,,,The availability of parity indices for regional and global monitoring is the same as for the underlying indicators for this goal.,The indicator is not symmetrical about 1 but a simple transformation can make it so (by inverting ratios that exceed 1 and subtracting them from 2). This will make interpretation easier.,"Gender parity indices are one type of parity index which will be calculated. It is also possible to calculate a sex-based parity index for other disaggregations by dividing the female value of the disaggregation of interest (e.g., rural females) by the male value (e.g. urban males) to better analyse multiple disparities.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +4.6,TRUE,4,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-4.pdf,10,"By 2030, ensure that all youth and a substantial proportion of adults, both men and women, and achieve literacy and numeracy.",4.6.1,"Udio stanovništva određene dobne skupine koje je postiglo najmanju određenu razinu postignuća u funkcionalnoj (a) pismenosti i (b) matematičkim kompetencijama, prema spolu",UNESCO,OECD,"From UNESCO:\nThe percentage of youth (aged 15-24 years) and of adults (aged 15 years and above) who achieve or exceed a given level of proficiency in (a) literacy and (b) numeracy.\n\nFrom OECD:\nAssessment of the proficiency of adults (16-65 year olds) in the domains of literacy, numeracy and problem solving in technology-rich environments. One hour cognitive assessment plus a background questionnaire of around 30-45 minutes.",,From UNESCO:\nThe indicator is a direct measure of the skill levels of youth and adults in the two areas.\n\nFrom OECD:\nProvide estimates of the level and distribution of key information processing skills among the adult population and better understand the links between these skills and their antecedents and outcomes.,,,,,,,"From UNESCO:\nThis indicator is collected via skills' assessment surveys of the adult population.\n\nFrom OECD:\nNon-institutionalised adults (aged 16-65 years) resident in the country. Minimum sample size = 5,000. ",,,,"From UNESCO: \nCurrently data are available for 33 mostly high-income countries from OECD's Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC). Similar information is available for (urban areas of) of 13 low- and middle-income countries from the World Bank's STEP Skills Measurement Program. These data sources are not directly comparable, but can be used to generate nationally- and regionally-specific estimates of the degree to which adults possess basic skills. Considerable work is required to develop a cost-effective module that can be integrated into national and international surveys. This is expected to take 3-5 years to achieve (i.e., by 2020). From OECD: \n33 countries have implemented PIAAC.","From UNESCO: \nThe measurement of youth and adult skills requires some form of direct assessment. Using household surveys to measure learning can be costly and difficult to administer, and may underestimate learning in areas that are critical to daily life but are harder to assess in standardised approaches. The result may be inaccurate representations of what youth and adults know and can do, especially in relation to applying skills that may vary across contexts. From OECD: \nParticipating countries and economies are mostly high income countries.","From UNESCO: \n The indicator will be disaggregated by sex and other relevant characteristics enabling a more thorough analysis of the disparities between the sexes. From OECD: \nAll measures can be disaggregated across gender, differences can be analysed and studied in detail.",,From OECD: \nSee PIAAC technical report and policy publications,From OECD: \nPIAAC website: http://www.oecd.org/site/piaac/ ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +4.7,FALSE,4,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-4.pdf,11,"By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture's contribution to sustainable development.",4.7.1,Mjera u kojoj su obrazovanje za (i) pripadnost globalnoj zajednici i (ii) održivi razvoj uključeni u (a) nacionalne obrazovne politike; (b) kurikulume; (c) obrazovanje učitelja; i (d) ocjenjivanje učenika,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +4.a,TRUE,4,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-4.pdf,12,"Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all.",4.a.1,"Udio škola koje nude osnovne usluge, prema vrsti usluge",UNESCO,,"The percentage of schools by level of education (primary, lower secondary and upper secondary) with access to the given facility or service. Internet for pedagogical purposes is defined as Internet that is available for enhancing teaching and learning and is accessible by pupils. Internet for pedagogical purposes is defined as a worldwide interconnected computer network, which provides pupils access to a number of communication services including the World Wide Web and carries e-mail, news, entertainment and data files, irrespective of the device used (i.e. not assumed to be only via a computer) and thus can also be accessed by mobile telephone, tablet, PDA, games machine, digital TV etc.). Access can be via a fixed narrowband, fixed broadband, or via mobile network. Basic drinking water is defined as a functional drinking water source (MDG 'improved' categories) on or near the premises and water points accessible to all users during school hours. Basic sanitation facilities are defined as functional sanitation facilities (MDG 'improved' categories) separated for males and females on or near the premises. Basic handwashing facilities are defined as functional handwashing facilities, soap (or ash) and water available to all girls and boys. The component on adapted infrastructure and materials is yet to be developed.",,The indicator measures access in schools to key basic services necessary to ensure a safe and effective learning environment for all students.,,,,,,,Administrative data from schools and other providers of education or training.,,,,"Cross-nationally comparable data on electricity are available for c95 countries, for Internet access for c70 countries and for water and sanitation for c100 countries. Further efforts will be required to apply the WASH definitions fully and extend coverage to more countries. This is expected to take 1-3 years (i.e. by 2018). Major preparatory work will be required to develop an approach on the assessment of school conditions for people with disabilities. This is expected to take 3-5 years (i.e. by 2020).",The indicator measures the existence in schools of the given service but not its quality or operational state.,Adequate access to single-sex toilets and hand-washing facilities is vital for ensuring a safe environment especially for girls in school.,,,"WASH 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 \nFor Computers and Internet for pedagogical purposes, see Guide to Measuring Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in Education, UIS Technical Paper No. 2. (http://www.uis.unesco.org/Library/Documents/ICT_Guide_EN_v19_reprintwc.pdf)",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +4.b,TRUE,4,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-4.pdf,14,"By 2020, substantially expand globally the number of scholarships available to developing countries, in particular least developed countries, small island developing States and African countries, for enrolment in higher education, including vocational training and information and communications technology, technical, engineering and scientific programmes, in developed countries and other developing countries.",4.b.1,"Iznos službene razvojne pomoći za stipendiranje, prema sektorima i vrstama obrazovanja",OECD,,Total net official development assistance (ODA,http://www.oecd.org/dac/dac-glossary.htm#ODA) for scholarships and student costs in donor countries (types of aid,http://www.oecd.org/investment/stats/44479737.pdf, E01 and E02). Data expressed in US dollars at the average annual exchange rate.,,ODA is the accepted measure of international development co-operation. The data thus cover official international assistance to provide education places for developing country nationals in donor country educational institutions.,,,,,,,"Data are compiled by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development from returns submitted by its member countries and other aid providers. Data can be accessed here, http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/data.htm.",,,"The data can be disaggregated by provider and recipient country, and essentially concern grants.","Data are available for essentially all high-income countries, and for an increasing number of middleincome aid providers.","The data only address international concessional flows provided by governments. Detailed, internationally comparable data on scholarships for developing country nationals provided by universities, colleges, foundations, NGOs and other sources is generally lacking.","Most scholarship programmes take account of gender issues in selecting students, but generalised data on the breakdown by sex of beneficiaries is not available.",,See Aid to education (http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/documentupload/Aid%20to%20Education%20data%20to%202011-13%20.pdf) data.,"OECD, 2015 Aid to Education (http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/education.htm)",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +4.c,TRUE,4,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-4.pdf,15,"By 2030, substantially increase the supply of qualified teachers, including through international cooperation for teacher training in developing countries, especially least developed countries and small island developing States.",4.c.1,"Udio učitelja s minimalno potrebnim kvalifikacijama, prema stupnju obrazovanja",UNESCO,OECD,"From UNESCO: \n The percentage of teachers by level of education taught (pre-primary, primary, lower secondary and upper secondary) who have received at least the minimum organized pedagogical teacher training pre-service and in-service required for teaching at the relevant level in a given country. The indicator should be calculated separately for public and private institutions. \n\nFrom OECD: \nTeachers (ISCED 2 level) were asked to indicate whether they had participated in any of the following activities 12 months prior to the survey: \n\tCourses/workshops (on subject matter or methods and/or other education-related topics). \n\tEducation conferences or seminars (where teachers and/or researchers present their research results and discuss education problems). \n\tObservation visits to other schools. \n\tObservation visits to business premises, public organisations, or non-governmental organisations. \n\tIn-service training courses in business premises, public organisations or non-governmental organisations. \n\tQualification programmes (e.g. a degree programme). \n\tParticipation in a network of teachers formed specifically for the professional development of teachers. \n\tIndividual or collaborative research on a topic of professional interest. \n\tMentoring and/or peer observation and coaching as part of a formal school arrangement",,"From UNESCO: \n Teachers play a key role in ensuring the quality of education provided. Ideally all teachers should receive adequate, appropriate and relevant pedagogical training to teach at the chosen level of education and be academically well-qualified in the subject(s) they are expected to teach. This indicator measures the share of the teaching work force which is pedagogically well-trained. \n\nFrom OECD: \nTo provide policy-relevant analysis on teachers' participation in professional development activities through a robust indicator.",,,,,,,"From UNESCO: \n Administrative data from schools and other organized learning centres. \n\nFrom OECD: \nInternational target population: Lower secondary education teachers and leaders of mainstream schools. \nTarget sample size: 200 schools per country; 20 teachers and 1 school leader in each school. School samples: Representative samples of schools and teachers within schools. \nTarget response rates: 75% of the sampled schools, together with a 75% response rate from all sampled teachers in the country. A school is considered to have responded if 50% of sampled teachers respond. \nSeparate questionnaires for teachers and school leaders, each requiring between 45 and 60 minutes to complete.",,,From OECD: \n\tBy type and intensity \n\tBy teacher and school characteristics \n\tBy reported financial cost \n\tBy lack of support \n\tBy other types of barriers,"From UNESCO: \nData have been collected for a number of years and are currently available for about 100 countries. \n\nFrom OECD: \n34 countries participate in TALIS 2013: \n\t24 OECD countries: Alberta (Canada), Australia, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, England (United Kingdom), Estonia, Finland, Flanders (Belgium), France, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, United States. \n\t10 Partner Economies: Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates), Brazil, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Latvia, Malaysia, Romania, Serbia, Singapore. \n\tFor TALIS 2018, the country coverage is expected to be wider tan 2013","From UNESCO: \n It is important to note that national minimum training requirements can vary widely from one country to the next. This variability between countries lessens the usefulness of global tracking because the indicator would only show the percent reaching national standards, not whether teachers in different countries have similar levels of training. Further work would be required if a common standard for teacher training is to be applied across countries. \n\nFrom OECD: \nA difference should be made between access to professional development activities and the participation rate in professional development activities",From UNESCO: \n The indicator will be disaggregated by sex enabling a more thorough analysis of the disparities between the sexes. \n\nFrom OECD: \nData are disaggregated by gender. Overall slightly greater participation for women (largest difference in favour of female teachers in Italy and Slovak Republic), in favour of male teachers the highest rate Abu Dhabi (UAE), in some countries equal participation.,,"From OECD: \nOECD (2014), TALIS 2013 Technical Report, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris. \nOECD (2009), Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris. \nDOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264068780-en","From OECD: \n OECD (2014), TALIS 2013 Results: An International Perspective on Teaching and Learning, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris. \nDOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264196261-en",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +5.1,TRUE,5,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-5.pdf,2,End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere.,5.1.1,"Postoje li pravni okviri za promicanje, jačanje i praćenje jednakosti i nediskriminacije na temelju spola",UN-WOMEN,,"The indicator measures whether national laws exist to promote gender equality and non-discrimination against women and girls. Areas of law to be monitored as part of this indicator are tentative but could include: whether equal pay for work of equal value is guaranteed in law; whether national legislation is in line with International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 183 on maternity protection; whether national law prohibits discrimination based on a definition of discrimination against women in accordance with article 1 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW); whether the national law provides equal rights for women and men with respect to inheritance and property; and the existence of laws (including criminal) against sexual assault. \nFor each area of law under consideration, the indicator is the number of countries with specific legislation to promote gender equality and non-discrimination (i.e. countries with 'yes') as a percentage of all countries with available data. A simple aggregation method (e.g. arithmetic or geometric mean) will then be used to calculate global and/or regional averages (taking into account all of the different areas of laws).",,"Laws and justice systems shape society by ensuring accountability, stopping the abuse of power and creating norms about what is acceptable. Removing discriminatory laws and putting in place laws and policies that promote gender equality is a prerequisite to ending discrimination against women and girls. \nBecause this indicator monitors laws, it focuses on de-jure equality between women and men and girls and boys and instances where legal frameworks promote gender equality and women's empowerment. This is not to say that de-facto inequality should not be prioritized. In fact, even where discrimination is explicitly prohibited by law, unequal outcomes between women and men and boys and girls can be the result of discriminatory practices that prevent women and girls from enjoying their human rights. \nMost of the indicators proposed to monitor the targets in SDG5 and the genderrelated indicators to monitor the targets in the other goals focus on outcomes. By focusing on laws, it is possible to juxtapose the different areas of law that are measured under 5.1 (e.g. laws to prevent sexual assault) to the actual 'results' (rates of sexual violence against women and girls as measured in target 5.2). Therefore, the proposed focus on laws and policies is meant to complement the outcome indicators proposed under the other targets in Goal 5 and the gender-related targets in other goals.",,,,,,,"The CEDAW Committee, UN Women and the Office for the High Commissioner for data collection Human Rights (OHCHR) have formed a working group to develop a methodology for collecting and monitoring this indicator. It is envisaged that the CEDAW Committee will monitor the indicator in a systematic and comparable manner as part of its country reporting and review process. The data source would be country reporting and review process under CEDAW.",,,,The indicator is currently classified as Tier III.,"The indicator measures means, not outcomes. However, the overarching and allencompassing nature of the target makes it difficult to measure using a single indicator. Therefore the indicator is a proxy measure and only addresses part of the target. The proposed focus on laws and policies can however be useful to complement the outcome indicators proposed under the other targets in Goal 5 and the gender-related targets in other goals.",Discrimination against women and girls takes many different forms. It can be found in law or in practice, both forms impede the realization of gender equality and women's empowerment.,,189 States are party to the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. A country becomes a State party by ratifying or acceding to the Convention and thereby accepting a legal obligation to counteract discrimination against women. The Committee monitors the implementation of national measures to fulfill this obligation.,http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/econvention.htm \nhttp://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/committee.htm,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
   5.2,FALSE,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.",5.2.1,"Udio žena i djevojčica u dobi od 15 godina i starijih koje su ikada imale partnera, a koje su bile izložene tjelesnom, seksualnom ili psihičkom nasilju od strane trenutnog ili bivšeg intimnog partnera u proteklih 12 mjeseci, prema obliku nasilja i dobi",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
   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,"Udio žena i djevojčica u dobi od 15 i starije koje su podvrgnute seksualnom nasilju od strane osoba koje nisu intimni partner, u prethodnih 12 mjeseci, prema dobi i mjestu počinjenja",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,Udio žena starih 20-24 godina koje su stupile u brak ili izvanbračnu zajednicu prije 15. godine i prije 18. godine,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,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  
positive.code: 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,"Udio vremena provedenog na neplaćenom radu u kućanstvu i neplaćenoj skrbi, prema spolu, dobi i lokaciji",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,Udio mjesta koje drže žene u (a) nacionalnim parlamentima i (b) lokalnim vlastima,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,Udio žena na rukovodećim radnim mjestima,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).",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  5.6,TRUE,5,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-5.pdf,23,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.,5.6.2,"Number of countries with laws and regulations that guarantee full and equal access to women and men aged 15 and older to sexual and reproductive health care, information and education",UN-WOMEN,UNFPA,"From UN-WOMEN:\n Legal/regulatory frameworks covered by this indicator include laws and regulations that explicitly guarantee: \n1. Access to SRH services without third party authorization (from the spouse, guardian, parents or others); \n2. Access to SRH services without restrictions in terms of age and marital status; \n3. Access by adolescents to SRH information and education. \nNote: the indicator also measures the absence of laws that prohibit or restrict access to SRH services \n\nFrom UNFPA: \n This indicator measures the proportion of countries with laws and regulations that guarantee women and adolescents access to sexual and reproductive health services, information and education irrespective of age, marital status and without third party authorization.\n\nFrom UNFPA: \n This indicator measures the proportion of countries with laws and regulations that guarantee women and adolescents access to sexual and reproductive health services, information and education irrespective of age, marital status and without third party authorization.","From UN-WOMEN:\n Denominator:\n All Member States, for federal states this will be reflected in central governments' self-reporting. \n Sources of information and methodology:\n The suggested methodology consists of initial self-reporting by governments through a detailed survey to be developed based on the indicators below with detailed questions that safeguard the replicability and reliability of state responses. This procedure was applied for the ICPD+20 review survey with support to governments from UNFPA's country offices where needed. The self-reported data will undergo validation and qualitative assessment by responsible UN agencies assigned to the task. At this stage other stakeholders and data sources could be consulted, e.g. National Human Rights Institutions, human rights treaty bodies or other international, regional or national monitoring bodies. \n\nFrom UNFPA: \n Methodology and feasibility of data collection \n\tThe indicator will measure the number of countries with legal and regulatory frameworks guaranteeing access to sexual and reproductive services, education and information without any of the above restrictions. Therefore, to count as a ""yes"" all the four requirements included in this indicator will need to be met: (i) access without third party authorization; (ii) access without age restrictions; (iii) access irrespective of marital status; and (iv) access to education and information at all levels. For countries counting as ""no"", nevertheless, data will be disaggregated in accordance to each of those requirements to be able to measure progress on each particular front. \nSources of information and methodology: \n\tThe suggested methodology consists of initial self-reporting by governments through a detailed survey to be developed based on the indicators below with detailed questions that safeguard the replicability and reliability of state responses. This procedure was successfully applied for the ICPD+20 review survey with support to governments from UNFPA's country offices where needed. \n\tInformation provided by States can be complemented with information from UN treaty monitoring bodies, including the Committee on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. These three committees are systematically collecting information and issuing recommendations to State parties on all the issues covered by this indicator. A combined use of these three committees as sources of information will ensure near universal coverage of States and will also increase the periodicity of information. \n\tMoreover, other actors with a monitoring role such as regional human rights mechanisms, national human rights institutions and civil society organizations often provide information on the components covered by this indicator. UN agencies such as WHO, UNFPA and UN Women also compile country specific information on legal and regulatory developments on issues pertaining to their respective mandates.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"Proposed research questions: \n1. Access to SRH services without third party authorization (from the spouse, guardian, parents or others) \n\ta: Are there national laws, regulations or policies that recognize a person's right to freely decide whether or not to accept health services? \n\tb: Are there national laws, regulations or policies requiring someone other than the patient to provide authorization to seek and receive health services? If yes, in what circumstances? Whose authorization is required? What procedures are followed? \n\tc: Do national laws, regulations or policies reflect the general principle that once a child has acquired ""sufficient maturity and/or understanding"" in relation to a particular decision on an important matter, he or she is entitled to make the decision independently? \n\t*: Provide a summary of legal/policy provisions relating to informed consent and relating to respecting the best interests, evolving capacities and views of the child. \n2. Access to SRH services without restrictions on the basis of age and marital status \n\td: Are there national laws, regulations or policies that explicitly restrict access to SRH services on the basis of minimum age and marital status? \n\t*: Provide a summary of legal/policy provisions relating to access to SRH services for adolescents and unmarried women and girls \n3. Access by adolescents to SRH information and education \n\te. Are there national laws, regulations or policies ensuring that all individuals have access to health information, including sexual and reproductive health information? \n\tf: Are there national laws, regulations or policies that regulate the provision of sexuality education in primary, secondary and higher education institutions, and for adolescents not enrolled in school? \n\t*: Provide a summary of legal/policy provisions relating to universal access to information and comprehensive sexuality education.","WHO: ""Reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health and human rights: A toolbox for examining laws, regulations and policies"" and the ICPD+20 review survey",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  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,Udio zemalja sa sustavima za praćenje i objavljivanje javnih izdvajanja za ravnopravnost spolova i osnaživanje žena,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  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,Udio stanovnika koji koriste sigurne vodne usluge vode za piće.,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,"Udio stanovnika koji koriste sigurne sanitarne usluge, uključujući prostoriju za pranje ruku sa sapunom i vodom.",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,Udio sigurno obrađenih otpadnih voda,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,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  6.3,TRUE,6,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-6.pdf,10,"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.",6.3.2,Udio vodenih površina s dobrom kakvoćom vode,UNEP,GEMS,"Proportion of water bodies (area) in a country with good ambient water quality compared to all water bodies in the country. 'Good' indicates an ambient water quality that does not damage ecosystem function and human health according to core ambient water quality indicators. Concept: Water quality is estimated based on a core set of five determinands that inform on major water quality impairments present in many parts of the world: total dissolved solids (TDS); percentage dissolved oxygen (% DO); dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN); dissolved inorganic phosphorus (DIP); and Escherichia coli (E. coli). As monitoring capacities and coverage vary between countries, a monitoring ladder is proposed. On the first rung, the number of determinands not meeting national water quality guidelines based on the existing monitoring sites are used to estimate the water quality. On the second rung, a water quality index is used to combine the determinand values in a statistically more robust manner, and the monitoring coverage increased. On consecutive rungs, the monitoring coverage can be step-wise increased and complementary determinands covering additional aspects of ambient water quality can be included depending on the national capacities and requirements enabling the indicator to inform on the status of ambient water quality in a more comprehensive way.","The GEMS/Water1 water quality index approach is used as a general model to calculate the index, in which measured determinand values are compared to guideline values (proximity to target approach): \n\t1. Proximity-to-target (PTT) scores for each determinand at single monitoring sites are calculated as the difference between the temporal average (for the accounting period) of the determinand concentration and the target divided by the range between the (winsorized) minimum or maximum of the measured determinand concentration (for exceedance and non-exceedance targets, respectively) and the target. The PTT scores are scaled to the range between 0 and 100, where 100 indicates that the target is met and decreasing scores indicate an increasing distance from the target. \n\t2. The water quality index (WQI) at site level is computed as the arithmetic mean of the site-level PTT scores for the selected determinands. The WQI scale can be divided into different water quality categories, ranging from very bad to excellent. The thresholds for these categories are country specific and should be reported in the monitoring system by the individual countries \n\t3. For the spatial aggregation at the basin level and country level, the water bodies are divided into stretches of homogenous quality (between consecutive monitoring stations). \n\t4. The final indicator is calculated from the proportion of the stretches with good quality compared to all water bodies assessed.","The proposed indicator informs on the quality of water bodies. The indicator allows for evaluating the impact of human development on ambient water quality and thus enables countries to assess the future services they can obtain from aquatic ecosystems (clean water for drinking, biodiversity, water for food production etc.). Water quality represents the actual outcome of all pollution and pollution reduction activities, and is thus essential to fully describe the environmental status of freshwater systems, as well as to fully report on target 6.3. Water quality also feeds into all other water-related targets, and the proposed indicator can be used to directly report on many other targets or parts of targets (refer to supplementary information).",,,,,,,"Existing data (in situ and modelled values) are available from UNEP's GEMS/Water (GEMStat_) and OECD. Additional information on optical water properties from remote sensing can be used as proxies for sediments and eutrophication/nutrient loading. Measurements would be completed at local laboratories and/or achieved using field measurements on appropriate protocols for sample collection and analysis. For data-poor areas estimates can be generated using existing in situ data combined with modelled data and remote sensing information. GEMStat (UNEP) contains 4 million records from over 3000 stations in 100 countries, although the sets of parameters, the choice of monitoring station and the collection frequency varies by large between countries.",,,Data is collected at the scale of river basins and can be aggregated to the country and regional scale.,"Entity responsible for global monitoring: UNEP (through GEMS/Water), on behalf of UN-Water. The monitoring of this indicator will be integrated into the GEMI initiative, which together with JMP and GLAAS, under the UN-Water umbrella, will provide Member States with a coherent framework for global monitoring of SDG 6. Related to indicator 6.3.2, GEMI will draw upon metadata standards which are already in place, among other sources on pre-existing datasets such as GEMStat and FAOAQUASTAT.","Both indicators proposed for 6.3 are considered necessary to deduct comprehensive adaptation strategies and management options with regard to improving water quality and reporting on the target. 6.3.1 is a policy relevant indicator that provides information on local point source pollution, whereas 6.3.2 is an outcome indicator that enables the evaluation of integral impacts of human development on ambient water quality.","The indicator is a measure of ambient water quality and therefore is ""gender neutral"". However, ambient water quality can impact women, men and socio-economic groups in different ways. These dimensions are therefore relevant to the interpretation of the indicator.",,,"GEMS/Water website: www.unep.org/gemswater \nGEMS/Water WQI: Water Quality Index for Biodiversity, Technical Report, GEMS/Water, 2008, available at http://www.unep.org/gemswater/Portals/24154/pdfs/new/2008%20Water%20Quality%20 Index%20for%20Biodiversity%20TechDoc%20July%2028%202008.pdf \nGEMStat: www.gemstat.org",3.3,8.4,11.5,11.6,12.4,14.1,14.2,15.1,GEMI,,UN-WATER,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  6.4,TRUE,6,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-6.pdf,13,"By 2030, substantially increase water-use efficiency across all sectors and ensure sustainable withdrawals and supply of freshwater to address water scarcity and substantially reduce the number of people suffering from water scarcity.",6.4.1,Promjena u učinkovitosti korištenja vode tijekom vremena,FAO,AQUASTAT,"This indicator is defined as the output over time of a given major sector per volume of (net) water withdrawn (showing the trend in water use efficiency). Following ISIC 4 coding, sectors are defined as agriculture, forestry and fishing (ISIC 4-A); manufacturing, constructions, mining and quarrying (ISIC 4-B, 4-C and 4-F); electricity industry (ISIC 4-D); and the municipal sector (ISIC 4-E). \nFor the purpose of this note, the following terminology is used: \n\tWater use: general non-specific term that describes any action through which water provides a service \n\tWater withdrawal: water abstracted from a river, lake, reservoir or aquifer(V) \n\tReturn flow: water returning to a river, lake, reservoir or aquifer (R) \n\tNet water withdrawal: water withdrawn (V) minus return flow (R) \nNote: If no information is available on (R), then only (V) will be used.","The indicator is disaggregated by sector, in order to allow for different metrics in different sectors. Water efficiency in irrigated agriculture is calculated as the agricultural value added per agricultural (net) water withdrawn, expressed in USD/m3. \nIn formula: Awe = GVAa x (1-Cr)Va-Ra \nWhere: \n\tAwe = Irrigated agriculture water efficiency [USD/m3] \n\tGVAa = Gross value added by agriculture (excluding river and marine fisheries and forestry)[USD] \n\tCr = Proportion of agricultural GVA produced by rainfed agriculture [-] \n\tVa =  Volume of water withdrawn by the agricultural sector (including irrigation, livestock and aquaculture) [m3] \n\tRa = Volume of water returned to the hydrologic system (return flow) [m3] \n\n The volume of water withdrawn by the agricultural sectors (V) is collected at country level through national records and reported in questionnaires, in units of km3/year or million m3/year (see example in AQUASTAT http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/sets/aq-5yr-quest_eng.xls). Agricultural value added in national currency is obtained from national statistics, converted to USD and deflated to the baseline year 2015. \nThe Cr coefficient can be estimated as Cr= 37%, on the basis of the general FAO assumption on the ratio between rainfed and irrigated yield. More detailed estimations are however possible and encouraged at country level. \nWater efficiency of industries is calculated as the industrial value added per unit of industrial (net) water withdrawn, and expressed in USD/m3. \nIn formula: Iwe = GVAiVi-Ri \nWhere: \n\tIwe = Irrigated water efficiency [USD/m3] \n\tGVAi = Gross value added by industry (excluding energy)[USD] \n\tVi =  Volume of water withdrawn by the industries (excluding energy) [m3] \n\tRi = Volume of water returned to the hydrologic system (return flow) [m3] \n\n Industrial water withdrawal (V) is collected at country level through national records and reported in questionnaires, in units of km3/year or million m3/year (see example in AQUASTAT http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/sets/aq-5yr-quest_eng.xls). Industrial value added is obtained from national statistics, deflated to the baseline year 2015. Energy (power) water efficiency is calculated as the value added of power production per unit of (net) water withdrawn for energy production, and expressed in MWh/m3. \nIn formula: Ewe = TEPVe-Re \nWhere: \n\tEwe = Energy water efficiency [MWh/m3] \n\tTEP = Total energy production [MWh] \n\tVe =  Volume of water withdrawn for energy production, i.e. for the cooling of power plants (including evaporation from reservoirs created behind dams for hydropower) [m3] \n\tRe = Volume of water returned to the hydrologic system (return flow) [m3] \n\n Volume of water withdrawn for energy production (V) is collected at country level through national records and reported in questionnaires, in units of km3/year or million m3/year (see example in AQUASTAT http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/sets/aq-5yr-quest_eng.xls). Value added of electricity production is obtained from national statistics, deflated to the baseline year 2015. Municipal water supply efficiency is the ratio between water effectively distributed to the municipal users and the water withdrawn for municipal use by water supply utilities (i.e. distribution efficiency, size of network losses). \nIn formula: Mwe = MudVm \nWhere: \n\tMwe = Municipal water supply efficiency [-] \n\tMud = Water distributed to municipal users [m3] \n\tVm = Volume of water withdrawn by municipal utilities (i.e. the public distribution network) [m3] \nData on volumes of withdrawn and distributed are collected at country level from the municipal supply utilities records.","The rationale behind this indicator consists in providing information on the efficiency of the economic and social usage of water resources, i.e. output generated by the use of water in the different main sectors of the economy, and distribution network losses. Energy production has been disaggregated from the industrial sector due to its specific importance for the general development of a country. \nThe distribution efficiency of water systems is explicitly considered only for the municipal sector, but it is nonetheless implicit within the calculations also for the other sectors, and could be made explicit if needed and where data are available. \nThis indicator addresses specifically the target component 'substantially increase water-use efficiency across all sectors', by measuring the output per unit of water from productive uses of water as well as losses in municipal water use. It does not aim at giving an exhaustive picture of the water utilization in a country. Other indicators, specifically those for Targets 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 5.4, 5.a, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.5 will complement the information provided by this indicator. In particular, the indicator needs to be combined with the water stress indicator 6.4.2 to provide adequate follow-up of the target formulation. \nTogether, the four sectoral efficiencies provide a measure of overall efficiency in a country. The indicator provides incentives to improve water use efficiency through all sectors, highlighting those sectors where water use efficiency is lagging behind.",,,,,,,"The components of the indicator can be calculated using existing datasets and new data to be collected during country updates from FAO-AQUASTAT (FAO) on water withdrawals in different sectors (including new data on return flows), together with datasets on value generation from National Accounts Main Aggregates (UNSD), World Energy Outlook (International Energy Agency), UN Population Division demographic datasets, FAOSTAT, World Bank, WaterStat database (Water Footprint Network) and IBNET (the International Benchmarking Network for water and sanitation utilities). \nUNSD Environment Statistics Section collects data from official national sources for water abstraction by ISIC activity through its biennial UNSD/UNEP Water Questionnaire from non OECD/Eurostat countries. UNSD closely collaborates with FAO-AQUASTAT and shares and validates data to provide together the best possible data at the global level. Data for OECD and Eurostat countries are being collected through the OECD/Eurostat Questionnaire that is consistent with the UNSD/UNEP Questionnaire, so data are comparable. Modelled data can be used to fill in possible gaps while capacity in data collection is being developed, so that the indicator can be calculated for all countries immediately.",,,"The indicator covers agricultural, industrial, energy and municipal sectors, so to provide the means for a more detailed analysis of the water use efficiency for national planning and decision-making. Although it would be difficult to disaggregate the indicator to hydrological basin or subnational scales, the calculations and methods provided as part of indicator development could be replicated by countries or water management organizations to provide similar data for sub-national or basin units, to be then aggregated to give the country-level indicator.","Entity responsible for global monitoring: FAO (through AQUASTAT), on behalf of UN-Water. The monitoring of this indicator will be integrated into the GEMI initiative, which together with JMP and GLAAS, under the UN-Water umbrella, will provide a coherent framework for global monitoring of SDG 6. \nData on water withdrawal for the compilation of the indicator are available on AQUASTAT for all countries across sectors. The estimation of the volumes of water withdrawn for energy production would be possible making several assumptions. Main sources of data for the gross value added by irrigated agriculture and industry are FAOSTAT and the World Bank database. Other sources include the World Energy Outlook of the International Energy Agency and the UNIDO database.","The corrective coefficient Cr for the agricultural sector is needed in order to focus the indicator on the irrigated production. This is done in order to eliminate a potential bias of the indicators, which otherwise would tend to decrease if rainfed cropland is converted to irrigated. Regional differences, in particular in relation to irrigated agriculture and different climatic conditions (including variability), are to be considered in the interpretation of this indicator, especially in countries with large amounts of available water resources. Also for this reason, coupling this indicator with water stress (6.4.2) is important for the interpretation of the data.","As the indicator components are not measured by gender, it is not possible to disaggregate this indicator by gender. However, it is especially indicator 6.4.2 which is important for gender equality issues, since water scarcity disproportionately affects women, particularly in developing countries, and jeopardizes the achievement of their human rights.",,,"\tAQUASTAT, FAO's Global Water Information System. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. The following resources on this site of specific interest to this indicator are: \n\t\tAQUASTAT glossary \n\t\tAQUASTAT Main Database \n\t\tWater use web page \n\t\tWater resources web page \n\t\tDisambiguation of water statistics (2012) \n\t\tIrrigation water requirement and water withdrawal by country (2012) \n\t\tCooling water for energy generation and its impact on national-level water statistics (2011) \n\t\tMunicipal and industrial water withdrawal modelling for the years 2000 and 2005 using statistical methods (2011) \n\t\tEvaporation from artificial lakes and reservoirs (2015) \n\t\tThe role of women in agricultural water management (2014) \n\tFAOSTAT production database \n\tUNSD/UNEP Questionnaire on Environment Statistics ' Water Section \n(http://unstats.un.org/unsd/environment/questionnaire.htm) \nhttp://unstats.un.org/unsd/environment/qindicators.htm \n\tFramework for the Development of Environment Statistics (FDES 2013) (Ch. 3) \n\tOECD/Eurostat Questionnaire on Environment Statistics ' Water Section \n\tInternational Recommendations for Water Statistics (IRWS) (2012) \n\tUNSD-System of Environmental Economic Accounting for Water (SEEA-Water) (2007) \n\tUNSD-System of Environmental Economic Accounting (SEEA) (2012) \n\tWorld Bank Open Data \n\tWorld Energy Outlook \n\tInternational Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activites (ISIC Rev. 4). \n\tUNIDO Statistics Data Portal \n\tUNDATA Explorer",2.4,8.4,9.4,12.2,12.3,,,,GEMI,6.4.2,UN-WATER,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  6.4,TRUE,6,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-6.pdf,16,"By 2030, substantially increase water-use efficiency across all sectors and ensure sustainable withdrawals and supply of freshwater to address water scarcity and substantially reduce the number of people suffering from water scarcity.",6.4.2,Razina vodenog stresa: zahvaćanje slatke vode u omjeru raspoloživih slatkovodnih resursa,FAO,AQUASTAT,"The ratio between total freshwater withdrawn by all major sectors and total renewable freshwater resources, after having taken into account environmental water requirements. Main sectors, as defined by ISIC standards, can include for example agriculture; forestry and fishing; manufacturing; electricity industry; and municipalities. This indicator is also known as water withdrawal intensity. The indicator builds on MDG indicator 7.5 and also accounts for environmental water requirements.\n\nThis indicator provides an estimate of pressure by all sectors on the country's renewable freshwater resources. A low level of water stress indicates a situation where the combined withdrawal by all sectors is marginal in relation to the resources, and has therefore little potential impact on the sustainability of the resources or on the potential competition between users. A high level of water stress indicates a situation where the combined withdrawal by all sectors represents a substantial share of the total renewable freshwater resources, with potentially larger impacts on the sustainability of the resources and potential situations of conflicts and competition between users. \nTotal renewable freshwater resources (TRWR) are expressed as the sum of internal and external renewable water resources. The terms ""water resources"" and ""water withdrawal"" are understood here as freshwater resources and freshwater withdrawal. \nInternal renewable water resources are defined as the long-term average annual flow of rivers and recharge of groundwater for a given country generated from endogenous precipitation. \nExternal renewable water resources refer to the flows of water entering the country, taking into consideration the quantity of flows reserved to upstream and downstream countries through agreements or treaties (and, where available, the reduction of flow due to upstream withdrawal). \nTotal freshwater withdrawal (TWW) is the volume of freshwater extracted from its source (rivers, lakes, aquifers) for agriculture, industries and municipalities. It is estimated at the country level for the following three main sectors: agriculture, municipalities (including domestic water withdrawal) and industries. Freshwater withdrawal includes primary freshwater (not withdrawn before), secondary freshwater (previously withdrawn and returned to rivers and groundwater) and fossil groundwater. It does not include non-conventional water, i.e. direct use of treated wastewater, direct use of agricultural drainage water and desalinated water. TWW is in general calculated as being the sum of total water withdrawal by sector minus direct use of wastewater, direct use of agricultural drainage water and use of desalinated water. \nEnvironmental water requirements (Env.) are established in order to protect the basic environmental services of freshwater ecosystems. Methods of computation of Env. are extremely variable. For the purpose of the SDG indicator, Env. are expressed as a percentage of the available water resources. \nMore details on method of calculation of the above variables can be found at \nhttp://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/water_res/index.stm or \nhttp://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/data/wrs/readPdf.html?f=AFG-WRS_eng.pdf.","The indicator is computed as the total freshwater withdrawn (TWW) divided by the difference between the total renewable freshwater resources (TRWR) and the environmental water requirements (Env.), multiplied by 100. All variables are expressed in km3/year (10^9 m3/year). \n\n Stress (%) = ( TWW / TRWR - Env. ) * 100 \n\nIt is proposed to classify the level of water stress in three main categories (levels): low, high and very high. The thresholds for the indicator could be country specific, to reflect differences in climate and national water management objectives. Alternatively, uniform thresholds could be proposed using existing literature and taking into account environmental water requirements.","The purpose of this indicator is to show the degree to which water resources are being exploited to meet the country's water demand. It measures a country's pressure on its water resources and therefore the challenge on the sustainability of its water use. It tracks progress in regard to ""withdrawals and supply of freshwater to address water scarcity"", i.e. the environmental component of target 6.4. \nThe indicator shows to what extent water resources are already used, and signals the importance of effective supply and demand management policies. It can also indicate the likelihood of increasing competition and conflict between different water uses and users in a situation of increasing water scarcity. Increased water stress, shown by an increase in the value of the indicator, has potentially negative effects on the sustainability of the natural resources and on economic development. On the other hand, low values of the indicator indicate that water does not represent a particular challenge for economic development and sustainability.",,,,,,,"Data for this indicator are usually collected by national ministries and institutions having waterrelated issues in their mandate, such as ministries of water resources, agriculture, or environment. Data are mainly published within national water resources and irrigation master plans, national statistical yearbooks and other reports (such as those from projects, international surveys or results and publications from national and international research centres).",,,"To compute this indicator, several sectoral data are needed. The indicator can be disaggregated to show the respective contribution of different sectors to the country's water stress, and therefore the relative importance of actions needed to contain water demand in the different sectors (agriculture, municipalities and industry). \nAt national level, water resources and withdrawal are estimated or measured at the level of appropriate hydrological units (river basins, aquifers). It is therefore possible to obtain a geographical distribution of water stress by hydrological unit, thus allowing for more targeted response in terms of water demand management.","FAO (through AQUASTAT), on behalf of UNWater. Under the UN-Water umbrella, a partial monitoring framework is already in place, currently being finalized under the inter-agency monitoring initiative known as GEMI (Integrated Monitoring of Water and Sanitation Related Targets). GEMI is a new coherent monitoring framework, working closely with JMP, to ensure long-term monitoring for the entire SDG 6. \nThe Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) is the agency responsible for compiling data and calculating this indicator at the international level. This is done through its Global Water Information System (AQUASTAT) country surveys since 1994. These surveys are carried out every ten years, on average. \nData are obtained through detailed questionnaires filled in by national experts and consultants who collect information from the different institutions and ministries having water-related issues in their mandate. Literature and information at the country and sub-country level are reviewed including national policies and strategies; water resources and irrigation master plans; national reports, yearbooks and statistics; reports from projects; international surveys; results and publications from national and international research centres; and the Internet. \nEnv. data are presently not systematically collected by AQUASTAT, but several methods are available and could be used to compute Env. for countries that do not have the institutional arrangements and standards in place to assess or collect these data. Data obtained from national sources are systematically reviewed to ensure consistency in definitions and consistency in data from countries located in the same river basin. A methodology has been developed and rules established to compute the different elements of national water balances. \nEstimates are based on country information, complemented, when necessary, with expert calculations based on unit water use figures by sector, and with available global datasets. In the case of conflicting sources of information, the difficulty lies in selecting the most reliable one. In some cases, water resources figures vary considerably from one source to another. There are various reasons for such differences, including differing computation methods, definitions or reference periods, double counting of surface water and groundwater or of transboundary river flows. Moreover, estimates of long-term average annual values can change due to the availability of better data from improvements in knowledge, methods or measurement networks. \nWhere several sources result in divergent or contradictory information, preference is given to information collected at the national or sub-national level rather than at regional or world levels. Moreover, except in the case of evident errors, official sources are privileged. As regards shared water resources, the comparison of information between countries makes it possible to verify and complete data concerning the flows of transboundary rivers and to ensure data coherence at the river basin level. In spite of these precautions, the accuracy, reliability and frequency with which information is collected vary considerably by region, country and category of information. Information is completed using models when necessary. \nRegional and global level aggregations are obtained by applying the same procedure as for country level computation. \nAQUASTAT data on water resources and use are published when new information becomes available on the FAO-AQUASTAT website at http://www.fao.org/nr/aquastat. \nModelled data are used with caution to fill gaps while capacity is being developed. Data on water resources can be modelled by using GIS-based hydrological models. Data on water withdrawal are estimated by sector on the basis of standard unit values of water withdrawal. \nUNSD Environment Statistics Section collects data from official national sources for water abstraction by ISIC activity through its biennial UNSD/UNEP Water Questionnaire from non OECD/Eurostat countries. UNSD closely collaborates with FAO-AQUASTAT and shares and validates data to provide together the best possible data at the global level. Data for OECD and Eurostat countries are being collected through the OECD/Eurostat Questionnaire that is consistent with the UNSD/UNEP Questionnaire, so data are comparable.","Water withdrawal as a percentage of water resources is a good indicator of pressure on limited water resources, one of the most important natural resources. However, it only partially addresses the issues related to sustainable water management. \nSupplementary indicators that capture the multiple dimensions of water management would combine data on water demand management, behavioural changes with regard to water use and the availability of appropriate infrastructure, and measure progress in increasing the efficiency and sustainability of water use, in particular in relation to population and economic growth. They would also recognize the different climatic environments that affect water use in countries, in particular in agriculture, which is the main user of water. Sustainability assessment is also linked to the critical thresholds fixed for this indicator and there is no universal consensus on such threshold. \nTrends in water withdrawal show relatively slow patterns of change. Usually, three-five years are a minimum frequency to be able to detect significant changes, as it is unlikely that the indicator would show meaningful variations from one year to the other. \nEstimation of water withdrawal by sector is the main limitation to the computation of the indicator. Few countries actually publish water use data on a regular basis by sector. \nRenewable water resources include all surface water and groundwater resources that are available on a yearly basis without consideration of the capacity to harvest and use this resource. Exploitable water resources, which refer to the volume of surface water or groundwater that is available with an occurrence of 90% of the time, are considerably less than renewable water resources, but no universal method exists to assess such exploitable water resources. \nThere is no universally agreed method for the computation of incoming freshwater flows originating outside of a country's borders. Nor is there any standard method to account for return flows, the part of the water withdrawn from its source and which flows back to the river system after use. In countries where return flow represents a substantial part of water withdrawal, the indicator tends to underestimate available water and therefore overestimate the level of water stress. \nOther limitations that affect the interpretation of the water stress indicator include: \n\tdifficulty to obtain accurate, complete and up-to-date data; \n\tpotentially large variation of sub-national data; \n\tlack of account of seasonal variations in water resources; \n\tlack of consideration to the distribution among water uses; \n\tlack of consideration of water quality and its suitability for use; and \n\tthe indicator can be higher than 100 per cent when water withdrawal includes secondary freshwater (water withdrawn previously and returned to the system), nonrenewable water (fossil groundwater), when annual groundwater withdrawal is higher than annual replenishment (over-abstraction) or when water withdrawal includes part or all of the water set aside for environmental water requirements. \nSome of these issues can be solved through disaggregation of the index at the level of hydrological units and by distinguishing between different use sectors. However, due to the complexity of water flows, both within a country and between countries, care should be taken not to double-count.","Women and men tend to have different water-related uses, priorities and responsibilities. There are also trends along gender lines in terms of access and control over water and water rights. Gender differences and inequalities mean that women and men experience and respond to changes in water availability, services or water policies differently. Thus the impact of water stress on women and men should be studied in order to better capture the gender dimension of water use.",,,,15.1,,,,,,,,GEMI,,UN-WATER,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  6.5,TRUE,6,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-6.pdf,21,"By 2030, implement integrated water resources management at all levels, including through transboundary cooperation as appropriate.",6.5.1,Stupanj integriranog upravljanja vodnim resursima (0-100),UNEP,GEMI,"This indicator reflects the extent to which integrated water resources management (IWRM) is implemented. It takes into account the various users and uses of water with the aim of promoting positive social, economic and environmental impacts on all levels, including transboundary, where appropriate.","National surveys are structured in 4 components: policies, institutions, management tools, and financing. Within each component there are questions with defined response options giving scores of 0- 100. Questions scores are aggregated to the component level, and each component score is equally weighted to give an aggregated indicator score of 0-100. \nThe method builds on official UN IWRM status reporting, from 2008 and 2012, of the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation from the UN World Summit for Sustainable Development (1992).","The indicator captures the degree of implementation of all main elements of IWRM. It supports decision making at the country level, as results can be disaggregated to review progress on different aspects. This will strengthen stakeholder participation, transparency and accountability. It also enables countries to identify barriers to progress and ways in which they can be addressed. It also facilitates coherence between the various targets within the water and sanitation goal by supporting water monitoring, planning and evaluation, as well as associated capacity building and thus the achievement of the overall water goal.",,,,,,,"UN Environment Programme (UNEP) as part of a UN-Water monitoring framework called GEMI (Integrated Monitoring of Water and Sanitation Related Targets) will coordinate the UN-Water support to countries to collect the data for this target. Work will be closely linked to other proposed water monitoring and reporting efforts, including regional governmental bodies, to support coordinated long-term monitoring for the entire SDG 6. \nThe primary data sources for international monitoring are national surveys for all UN member states (one per country) in the form of a score-based questionnaire completed by the government ministries. Regional and global estimates are aggregated from national data. UNEP and UN-Water partners have both the experience and resources in place for supporting countries' capacity building needs for monitoring and reporting. UN-Water has assisted countries with periodic monitoring of the status of IWRM implementation in 2008 and 2012 (e.g. http://www.unwater.org/publications/status-report-on-integrated-water-resources-management/en/). Data is available for a total of 134 countries (http://www.unepdhi.org/rioplus20 (see data file zip link).",,,"Data are collected at the national level. The IWRM surveys will specifically address issues relating to gender, governance, ecosystems, expenditures, and human capacity, as well as transboundary interests. National estimates can be aggregated to present regional and global estimates.",National estimates can be aggregated to present regional and global estimates.,"Advancing the implementation of IWRM has been included in SDG-6 by UN Member States as a continuation of the JPOI agreement, to advance good water governance at all levels and to ensure coordination between the other waterrelated SDG targets. UN-Water is exploring ways by which this indicator can be more closely linked to the outcomeoriented targets within the water and sanitation Goal.","Gender equity and women's empowerment in water resources management is one of the cornerstones of the DublinRio principles upon which IWRM is founded. Gender plays an intricate role in IWRM, not just in the planning process but also through the stakeholder consultations and in helping to secure and enforce rights and responsibilities relating to many different aspects of use. These aspects are captured in the IWRM survey questions.",,,"UN-Water 2012: Status Reports on IWRM. Internet site : http://www.unwater.org/publications/status-report-onintegrated-water-resources-management/en/ \nAMCOW 2012 : Status Report on Water Resources Management in Africa, http://www.amcowonline.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=262&Itemid=141&lang=en \nUN-Water 2008 : Status Report on IWRM for CSD-16, http://www.unwater.org/publications/publicationsdetail/en/c/206480/UNEP-DHI \nData from the 2012 Survey on the Application of Integrated Approaches to Water Resources Management. Internet site: http://www.unepdhi.org/rioplus20 \nGEMI ' Integrated Monitoring of Water and Sanitation-related SDG Targets. Internet site: http://www.unwater.org/gemi/en/",6.b,,,,,,,,UN-WATER,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  6.5,TRUE,6,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-6.pdf,22,"By 2030, implement integrated water resources management at all levels, including through transboundary cooperation as appropriate.",6.5.2,Udio prekograničnih vodenih bazena s operativnim rasporedom za vodnu suradnju,UNECE,Secretariat for the Water Convention,"Proportion of surface area of transboundary basins that have an operational arrangement for transboundary water cooperation. Regular meetings of the riparian countries to discuss IWRM and exchange of information are required for an arrangement to be defined as ""operational"".\nConcepts: Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) is an approach to managing water in a coordinated way. It takes into account the different water sources as well as various users and uses in a given situation, with the aim of maximizing positive social, economic and environmental benefits. It uses catchments and aquifers, as the principle unit of water management, and stresses decentralization of governance structures and active stakeholder participation in decision making. \nTransboundary basins are surface water or groundwater basins (aquifers) which cross or are located on boundaries between two or more States. \nAn agreement, institutional arrangement and/or an established organization provides a framework for cooperation on transboundary water management. Such a framework is commonly based on an agreement covering different aspects of transboundary water management. Agreements may be interstate, intergovernmental, interministerial or interagency. In addition to an agreement (e.g. a treaty, convention, Memorandum of Understanding), such framework can be provided by a bilateral or multilateral commission or other appropriate institutional arrangements for cooperation. Furthermore, multi-sectoral cooperation institutions can cover for water issues. For a cooperation framework to be considered as ""operational"", it requires that there are regular meetings of the riparian countries to discuss the integrated management of the water resource and to exchange information.","Calculated ' for any spatial unit (country, region) ' as the percentage that the total surface area (in km2) of transboundary basins that have an operational arrangement for water cooperation makes up of the total surface area of transboundary basins (km2). GIS data on the extent and location of transboundary basins facilitates the spatial analysis, corresponding datasets available globally.","Target 6.5 stresses the importance of transboundary cooperation to implement integrated water resources management of shared basins, to ensure availability and sustainable management of water resources. \nMost of the world's water resources are shared: transboundary lake and river basins cover nearly one half of the Earth's land surface and account for an estimated 60% of global freshwater. Approximately 40% of the world's population lives in transboundary river and lake basins and over 90% lives in countries that share basins. However, cooperation on shared water resources is in most cases not advanced. \nThe single most important factor enabling transboundary water cooperation is the existence of a cooperation framework (agreement, institution or other adequate arrangement) and it being operational, i.e. ensuring regular dialogue and exchange between riparian countries.",,,,,,,"Existing data and sources for this indicator include: \nSpatial data (delineating transboundary basins) are available for all known transboundary basins. Data are available at global level at the 120 international river basin organisations. Spatial data are available for all currently known 286 surface water basins and 592 transboundary aquifers. Associated uncertainties (i.e. delineation of transboundary aquifers) are being refined gradually. \nA global database of freshwater treaties and international river basin organizations exists as well as several regional ones, e.g., for the Pan-European region the second Assessment under the UNECE Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (Water Convention) and for the Americas, compilations by UNESCO and the Organization for American States. Further detailed information on cooperation for different types of transboundary waters (rivers, lakes and groundwaters) is expected to become available through a regular reporting mechanism on transboundary water cooperation, established under the UNECE Water Convention in November 2015 by a decision of the Meeting of the Parties to this Convention opened for accession by all UN Member States. \nA global baseline comparative assessment of transboundary waters, including river basins and aquifers has been undertaken by the Transboundary Waters Assessment Project (TWAP, completed in 2014), involving generation of geo-referenced datasets, including on transboundary cooperation. This is based on a database which includes in total 686 international freshwater treaties.",,,"Surface areas of a country which are part of a transboundary river, lake or groundwater basin (in km2) can be derived from intersecting basin areas by country borders. Basin level data can also be disaggregated to country level (for national reporting) and aggregated to regional and global level.","UNECE (as Secretariat for the Water Convention), UNESCO and UNEP on behalf of UN-Water. The monitoring of this indicator will be integrated into the GEMI initiative, which together with JMP and GLAAS, under the UN-Water umbrella, will provide Member States with a coherent framework for global monitoring of SDG 6. \nThe UNECE Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (the 'Water Convention') provides a legal and intergovernmental framework for transboundary water cooperation. Originally designed as an agreement for the pan-European region, the Convention was amended to open it for accession to all UN Member States. The amendments entered into force in February 2013. The regular reporting on transboundary water cooperation adopted by the Meeting of the Parties to the Convention in November 2015 includes questions by transboundary basins, rivers, lakes and aquifers (as appropriate) about existence, scope and features of agreements and arrangements for transboundary water cooperation. Both Parties and non-Parties are invited to report. UNECE acts as secretariat for the Convention. \nIn the framework of the UNESCO Internationally Shared Aquifer Resources Management (ISARM) Initiative a world inventory of transboundary aquifers has been compiled since 2002, involving work on delineation and analysis of transboundary aquifer systems. The ISARM network consists of five regional networks of experts. Spatial data (delineating transboundary basins) are available for all knowntransboundary river basins and groundwaters UNESCO's Global Groundwater Information System (GGIS) is a web-based portal to groundwater-related information and knowledge. It includes spatial data for most currently known 592 transboundary aquifers. \nCountries have information about which basins are covered by operational arrangements for transboundary water cooperation, and what is the corresponding area share though uncertainties for groundwaters exist.","In line with the target, the indicator measures (and provides an incentive for) extending cooperation in transboundary basins. Without an adequate coordination at the basin level water resources management cannot be truly integrating the different water uses and ensure sustainability. Transboundary cooperation frameworks are highly diverse, differing in quality and effectiveness. At the same time, depending on the level of economic activities and the degree of development, and hence the coordination need, also vary. The monitoring can be based on general principles of cooperation. \nEventually, the scope, quality and/or extent of application of operational arrangements for transboundary cooperation could be reviewed for refining the monitoring. \nA part of the operational arrangements for integrated management of transboundary basin areas in place cover both surface waters and groundwaters but this is not always the case. The calculation should also take into account the present arrangements that are specific for groundwaters. \nThe information is expected to get gradually refined, notably on the delineations and consequently on the spatial extent of the aquifers as well as their exact number.","Gender equity and women's empowerment in water resources management is one of the cornerstones of the Dublin-Rio principles. Gender plays an intricate role in IWRM, not just in the planning process but also through the stakeholder consultations and in helping to secure and enforce rights and responsibilities relating to many different aspects of use. Adequate institutional frameworks help to ensure participation of relevant interest groups, social groups and genders.",,,Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes: a globalizing framework http://www.unece.org/env/water.html \nReporting under the Water Convention http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/documents/2015/WAT/11Nov_17- 19_MOP7_Budapest/ECE_MP.WAT_2015_7_reporting_decision_ENG.pdf \nGEMI ' Integrated Monitoring of Water and Sanitation-related SDG Targets. Internet site. http://www.unwater.org/gemi/en/ \nGlobal Environment Facility's Transboundary Waters Assessment Project http://www.geftwap.org/ \nTreaties on transboundary waters: Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database (TFDD) at Oregon State University http://www.transboundarywaters.orst.edu/publications/atlas/index.html \nRiver Basin Organisations http://www.transboundarywaters.orst.edu/research/RBO/index.html \nA regional example: Status of transboundary water cooperation in the pan-European region: http://www.unece.org/env/water/publications/pub/second_assessment.html \nInternationally Shared Aquifer Resources Management (UNESCO's International Hydrological Programme): Regional inventories of transboundary groundwaters http://www.isarm.org/,,,,,,,,,UNESCO,,UNEP,GEMI,UN-WATER,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  6.6,TRUE,6,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-6.pdf,25,"By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes.",6.6.1,Promjena u opsegu vodenih ekosustava tijekom vremena,UNEP,CBD,"Percentage of change in water-related ecosystems over time (% change/year). The indicator would track changes over time in the extent of wetlands, forests and drylands, and in the minimum flows of rivers, volumes of freshwater in lakes and dams, and the groundwater table. The Ramsar Convention broad definition of ""wetland"" is used, which includes rivers and lakes, enabling three of the biome types mentioned in the target to be assessed - wetlands, rivers, lakes - plus other wetland types.","It is proposed to estimate percentage change in each major ecosystem present in a country, and the indicator will enable Member States to report on those water-related ecosystems that are important to them. \nWetland extent is computed through the existing Living Planet Index methodology for data collection and analysis (http://www.livingplanetindex.org/home/index). It consists of a number of stages including harvesting of time series data, codification and database entry, aggregation into sub-indices to reduce sampling bias, and further aggregation to create subglobal (ecologically and regionally specific) and global indices. The methodology is flexible to incorporating improving sources of information and data, for a more comprehensive assessment of trends. \nThe structure of the indicator can be designed to align with the SEEA Water accounts and estimate percentage change in Natural Water Capital available to society based on a) Mean Annual Water Availability; b) Mean Annual Water Withdrawals; c) Environmental Water requirements Aquastat (FAO); GEMS Water for national data (UNEP).","Definitions of target elements: \n\tProtect implies a reduction or eradication in loss or degradation \n\tRestore implies a reversal of loss or degradation \n\tMountains, Forests, Wetlands, Rivers, Aquifers and Lakes include ecosystems that provide freshwater-related ecosystem services \n\tWetlands are further defined under the Ramsar Convention as areas of marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six metres. It may also include subterranean hydrological systems. \nWetlands are a prominent ecosystem type influencing the water cycle and therefore of direct importance to the achievement of Goal 6. Wetlands loss leads to increasing water insecurity and wetlands restoration (increasing wetland area) is now a widespread response to achieving sustainable water. Examples include how wetlands contribute to flood regulation, regulation of surface water flows (flow regulation), and nutrient cycling (pollution regulation/water quality).",,,,,,,"Biophysical data on extent, volume and quantity are available for the majority of freshwater systems listed in the majority of the countries but with temporal gaps; in some cases there has been no access to national data. It is proposed to estimate percentage change in each major ecosystem present in a country using a mixture of ground data and earth observations. The indicator will enable Member States to report (through existing mechanisms) on those water-related ecosystems that are important to them. \nThe EO data are universally available, and can be used by national institutions at a relatively low cost. The collection of data is possible through the collaboration of international and national institutions (UNEP (GEMS Water); WCMC; Biodiversity indicators Partnership ' Ramsar, Convention on Biological Biodiversity; Convention on Combatting Desertification; GEO/GEOSS, NASA, GRDC), the methodology and networks required and the capacity to undertake this work. The different frameworks will be integrated through the GEMI monitoring initiative, operating under the UN-Water umbrella. \nDownscaling to the national level is undertaken on the UNEP Live platform with the relevant national institution in the Indicator Reporting and Information System. \nA. Percentage change in extent of freshwater systems \n\tESA Sentinel-2A provides 10-day repeat coverage of Earth's land areas, which in combination with the 8-day coverage from Landsat 7 and 8 NASA Land Use/Land Cover Change combined will give better-than-weekly coverage at moderate resolution. \n\tForest extent/cover: ESA Sentinel-2A; Global Forest Change 2000'2014 (UMD) University of Maryland; Forests of the World 2010 (FRA 2015) FAO; Globalforest/nonforest map PALSAR mosaic - Jaxa \n\tSwamps/marshes (including swamps forests): GlobeCover Sentinel 2A statistics \n\tPonds/lakes/open water: Global Land Surface Water Dataset in 30m \n\tPeat: Optical data ESA Sentinel 2 data for extent; Radar data for changes with ground based verification; RAMSAR has national maps for arctic peats \n\tMangrove: World Mangrove Atlas (UNEP-WCMC) ; JAXA Global Mangroves Watch \n\tRivers/floodplains: River Global Land Surface Water Dataset in 30m; River HydroSHED7 and HydroBASINS (USGS, WWF); Flood plains PREVIEW Global Flood Model (UNEP, UNISDR) \n\tReservoirs and Dams: Global System Water Project GRaND and with socio-economic data Ciesin GRaND \n\tDeserts/dry lands: Global Aridity Index (Global-Aridity)- CGIAR-CSI; FAO Drylands - Percent of Total Area (2003) \nB. Percentage change in Quantity \n\tFlows/discharge: WMO data distributed by Global Runoff Data Centre \n\tDepth (volume) of water bodies: Exists for major water bodies; Rivers and lakes database; HydroWeb (LEGOS); \n\tChanges to groundwater table/shallow aquifers: Grace mission (NASA); \nC. Quality \n\tGEMS-Water will provide national data where available \n\tEutrophication of rivers: Sentinel 2 can be considered \n\tEutrophication of estuaries: Sentinel 2 can be considered \n\tEutrophication of lakes: 300 m resolution available today (VIIRS, MODIS); Sentinel 3 to be considered from 2016 (300 m resolution); Sentinel 2 (10 m resolution) \n\tEutrophication of the coastal inshore: 762 sites showing eutrophication and/or hypoxia - WRI \n\tSalinity of groundwater: IGRAC http://www.un-igrac.org/news/saline-groundwater \n\tOther WQ variables: Experts also identified possiblity to monitor turbidity (Landsat 8, Sentinel 2); 10 -30 m resolution; 300 m resolution (MODIS, VIIRS, Sentinel 3) is quantifiable; Blue-green algae ' fully operational; Oil spills ' done using Radar, Sentinel 1 (high resolution) \nD. State of water ecosystems \n\tWetland health, indicies, vegetation etc: Through RAMSAR RSIS; LiMES (automated change detection)",,,The data can be disaggregated by type of water-related ecosystem.,"CBD and UNEP, on behalf of UN-Water. Wetland assessments are undertaken by the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, in collaboration with CBD (including the biodiversity indicators partnership) and UNEP, through the GEMI monitoring initiative. \nThe monitoring of this indicator will be integrated into the GEMI initiative, which together with JMP and GLAAS, under the UN-Water umbrella, will provide Member States with a coherent framework for global monitoring of SDG 6.",,"The indicator is a measure of ecosystem extent and therefore is ""gender neutral"". However, through their local impacts on water quality and quantity, wetlands can impact women, men and socio-economic groups in different ways. These dimensions are therefore relevant to the interpretation of the indicator.",,,,11.5,11.6,11.7,12.2,13.1,14.2,14.5,15.1,Ramsar,,GEMI,UN-WATER,,15.3,15.5,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  6.a,TRUE,6,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-6.pdf,28,"By 2030, expand international cooperation and capacity-building support to developing countries in water- and sanitation-related activities and programmes, including water harvesting, desalination, water efficiency, wastewater treatment, recycling and reuse technologies.",6.a.1,Iznosi službene razvojne pomoći za vodu i odvodnju u cilju kordiniranja potrošnje vode,WHO,UN-WATER,"International cooperation and capacity-building support implies aid (most of it quantifiable) in the form of grants or loans by external support agencies. The amount of water and sanitation-related Official Development Assistance (ODA) can be used as a proxy for this, captured by the Creditor Reporting System (CRS) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Realising that the role of ODA in international cooperation is evolving and that a broad range of stakeholders is involved in ""international cooperation and capacity development support"", it is envisaged that this indicator will evolve and will be further qualified during the SDG period. \nUN-Water is working together with OECD to align the proposed indicator and methodology with OECD work. \nOfficial Development Assistance (ODA) is defined as flows of official financing administered with the promotion of the economic development and welfare of developing countries as the main objective, and which are concessional in character with a grant element of at least 25 per cent (using a fixed 10 per cent rate of discount). By convention, ODA flows comprise contributions of donor government agencies, at all levels, to developing countries (""bilateral ODA"") and to multilateral institutions. ODA receipts comprise disbursements by bilateral donors and multilateral institutions. Lending by export credit agencies'with the pure purpose of export promotion'is excluded (OECD source IMF 2003). \nA government coordinated spending plan is defined as a financing plan/budget for the water and sanitation sector, clearly assessing the available sources of finance and strategies for financing future needs.","The indicator is computed as the proportion between the amount of water and sanitation related Official Development Assistance a government receives, and the total amount budgeted for water and sanitation in a government coordinated spending plan.","Target 6.a includes many elements. The amount of water and sanitation-related Official Development Assistance (ODA) is a quantifiable measurement as a proxy for ""international cooperation and capacity development support"" in financial terms, because this data are readily available from the Creditor Reporting System (CRS) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). \nIt is essential to be able to assess ODA in proportion with information about the government coordinated spending plan in proportion of ODA to gain a better understanding of how much countries depend/rely on ODA and highlighting countries total water and sanitation budgets over time.",,,,,,,"The monitoring of the Means of Implementation of SDG 6 builds directly on the UNWater Global Analysis and Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking-Water (GLAAS) (for drinking water, sanitation and hygiene issues) financial information, complemented by the TrackFin initative that aims to track financial information in the WASH sector and the Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) reporting in SDG target 6.5 (for wastewater and water quality, water efficiency, water resource management, and the status of water-related ecosystems). \nThe main data source is the Creditor Reporting System of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, in particular the reporting on ""Water Supply and Sanitation"". UN-Water is working together with OECD to align the proposed indicator and methodology with OECD work. \nThe analysis of these data is currently done on a biennial basis by the UN-Water GLAAS, led by WHO, for drinking water, sanitation and hygiene matters collected biennially (in 94 countries in 2013/2014) that collects financial information, including the specific initiative ""Tracking financing to sanitation, hygiene and drinking-water"" (TrackFin). The analysis of the data on water resources management was done by UN-Water in 2008 (led by UN-DESA) and in 2012 (led by UNEP, UNDP, GWP and SIWI) as requested by the UN Commission for Sustainable Development.",,,"By disaggregating ODA according to the CRS Purpose Codes (www.oecd.org/dac/stats/49819385.pdf), specific information can be obtained on the level of international cooperation in water and sanitation related activities, including infrastructure development, policies, and capacity development. \nThe 'Water Supply and Sanitation' CRS Purpose Codes are: \n14010 Water sector policy and administrative management \n14015 Water resources conservation (including data collection) \n14020 Water supply and sanitation - large systems \n14021 Water supply - large systems \n14022 Sanitation - large systems \n14030 Basic drinking water supply and basic sanitation \n14031 Basic drinking water supply \n14032 Basic sanitation \n14040 River basins' development \n14050 Waste management / disposal \n14081 Education and training in water supply and sanitation","WHO, through the UN-Water GLAAS and with the support of UNEP through the reporting in SDG target 6.5, on behalf of UN-Water.","International cooperation and capacity-building support implies aid (most of it quantifiable) in the form of grants or loans by external support agencies, for which ODA can be considered a best available proxy. ODA does however not capture all types of support in this regard. \nThe UN-Water Global Analysis and Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking-Water (GLAAS) results indicate that here are substantial gaps in our understanding and tracking of financing to the WASH sector. Financial reporting is often insufficient to make sound and evidence-based planning and budgeting decisions. To help address the issue, WHO lead the ""TrackFin"" initiative under the UN-Water GLAAS project, which complements financial information collected in more than 90 countries in 2013/2014 through its GLAAS survey. Although many gaps still remain, the evidence base is growing incrementally and reporting such information will help improve understanding of how financial resources for WASH are allocated both at national and at global levels. \nGLAAS information aims to assess whether there is a financing plan or budget for WASH, the extent of its implementation and whether it includes all main areas (water/sanitation/hygiene, urban/rural). In some countries there may be several plans each covering a specific area e.g. separate plans for drinking-water, sanitation and hygiene, separate plans for urban and rural areas, even sometimes different plans for urban differentiating according to utility boundaries and urban areas not covered by the national utility for example. Although plans and budgets may both exist in countries and present different figures/estimates, the aim of this information is to identify if there is an agreed allocation for WASH.","Both UN-Water GLAAS and IWRM work includes information about inequality issues, which can be directly used to support indicator analysis in this regard.",,,,7.a,13.b,15.9,,,,,,GLAAS,,UNEP,GEMI,OECD,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  6.b,TRUE,6,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-6.pdf,30,Support and strengthen the participation of local communities in improving water and sanitation management.,6.b.1,Udio lokalnih administrativnih jedinica s utvrđenim operativnim politikama i postupcima za sudjelovanje lokalnih zajednica u upravljanju vodom i kanalizacijom,WHO,UN-WATER,"This indicator builds on data that are already regularly collected by UN-Water GLAAS on the presence, at the national level, of clearly defined procedures in laws or policies for participation by service users. \NThis indicator will also build on the data collected for the Status of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) reporting in SDG target 6.5, in particular on the presence of formal stakeholder structures established at sub-catchment level. \nBecause of the above, it is envisaged that this indicator will evolve and will be further qualified during the SDG period, focussing on sanitation, drinking water and hygiene first and then expanding on water resources management.",,"Defining the procedures in policy or law for the participation of local communities is vital to ensure needs of all the community is met, including the most vulnerable and also encourages ownership of schemes which in turn contributes to their sustainability.",,,,,,,"The main data sources are the UN-Water GLAAS surveys and the IWRM surveys for SDG target 6.5, with ground truthing thanks to the data collected for SDG target 6.1 which also provides information on regulated water supplies, and from household surveys.",,,"This indicator builds on data that are already regularly collected by UN-Water GLAAS on the presence, at the national level, and data can currently be disaggregated by: \n\ti) urban sanitation, \n\tii) rural sanitation, \n\tiii) urban drinking-water, \n\tiv) rural drinking-water and \n\tv) hygiene promotion.","WHO, through the UN-Water GLAAS and with the support of UNEP through the reporting in SDG target 6.5, on behalf of UN-Water.","Information gathered through the GLAAS survey aims to assess whether there are formal mechanisms in place to ensure participation of users in planning WASH activities and whether these are used. Participation of users helps ensure that solutions will be relevant and also encourages ownership in the programmes which in turn aids in the sustainability of the services. For instance, planning a national hygiene campaign would need input from representatives of some local communities to understand the main issues to address around hygiene promotion and resources needed to carry out the campaign, thus ensuring ownership and sustainability of the campaign.","Both UN-Water GLAAS and IWRM work includes information about inequality issues, which can be directly used to support indicator analysis in this regard.",,,,7.a,13.b,15.9,,,,,, GLAAS,,UNEP,GEMI,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  7.1,TRUE,7,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-7.pdf,2,"By 2030, ensure universal access to affordable, reliable and modern energy services.",7.1.1,Udio stanovništva s pristupom električnoj energiji (%),World Bank,UN Energy,"The percentage of the population that has access to electricity, based on national household surveys. Given the low frequency and the regional distribution of some surveys, a number of countries have gaps in available data. To develop the historical evolution and starting point of electrification rates, a simple modeling approach was adopted to fill in the missing data points - around 1990, 2000, 2010 and 2012. This modeling approach allowed the estimation of electrification rates for 212 countries over these time periods. The SE4ALL Global Tracking Framework Report (2013) referenced below provides more details on the suggested methodology for tracking access to energy (Chapter 2, Section 1, page 82-87).",,"Access to electricity addresses major critical issues in all the dimensions of sustainable development. The target has a wide range of social and economic impacts, including facilitating development of household-based income generating activities and lightening the burden of household tasks.",,,,,,,"Data for access to electricity are collected entirely from household surveys (and occasionally censuses), tapping into a wide number of different household survey types including: Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) and Living Standards Measurement Surveys (LSMS), Multi-Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS), the World Health Survey (WHS), other nationally developed and implemented surveys, including those by various government agencies (for example, ministries of energy and utilities). \nThe World Bank is the agency that has taken responsibility for compiling a metadatabase of statistics on electricity access harvested from the full global body of household surveys. The World Bank Electrification Database covers more than 180 countries for the period 1990-2012 and is updated regularly. \nFor more information on compiling access to energy data see Global Tracking Framework report (2013) (Chapter 2, Annex 2, page 127-129).",,,Disaggregation of access to electricity by rural or urban place of residence is possible for all countries.,Electricity access rate: Global coverage is available through the World Bank Global Electrification Database 2015 and the database SE4ALL Global Tracking Framework (World Bank) referenced below.,"While the existing global household survey evidence base provides a good starting point for tracking household energy access, it also presents a number of limitations that will need to be addressed over time. In many parts of the world, the presence of an electricity connection in the household does not necessarily guarantee that the energy supplied is adequate in quality and reliability or affordable in cost and it would be desirable to have fuller information about these critical attributes of the service, which have been highlighted in SDG7. \nSubstantial progress has already been made toward developing and piloting a new methodology known as the Multi-Tier Framework for Measuring Energy Access (World Bank) which is able to capture these broader dimensions of service quality and would make it possible to go beyond a simple yes/no measure of energy access to a more refined approach that recognizes different levels of energy access, and also takes into account the affordability and reliability of energy access explicitly referenced in the language of SDG7. The methodology for the Multi-Tier Framework for Measuring Energy Access has already been published based on a broad consultative exercise and represents a consensus view across numerous international agencies working in the field. A first Global Energy Access Survey using this methodology has already been launched and is underway expecting to yield results by early 2017. Discussions are also progressing with the World Bank's Household Survey Technical Working Group regarding the mainstreaming of this methodology into the standardized household questionnaire design that will be applied every three years in all low income countries between 2015 and 2030 as part of the broader SDG monitoring exercise. \nThe adoption of this methodology will allow ' over time ' the more refined measurement of energy access, making it possible to report more disaggregated information regarding the type of electricity supply (grid or off-grid), the capacity of electricity supply provided (in Watts), the duration of service (daily hours and evening hours), the reliability of service (in terms of number and length of unplanned service interruptions), the quality of service (in terms of voltage fluctuations), as well as affordability and legality of service. \nAnother advantage of this approach is that they can be applied not only to measuring energy access at the household level, but also its availability to support enterprises and deliver critical community services, such as health and education. \nMethodological challenges associated with the measurement of energy access are more fully described the Global Tracking Framework (2013) (Chapter 2, Section 1, page 75-82), and in the ESMAP (2015) Report ""Beyond Connections: Energy Access Redefined"" both of which are referenced below.","Energy is a service provided at the household, rather than individual level. Nonetheless, it is used differentially by men and women and has different impacts on their well-being. What will be possible, in principle, is to report energy access disaggregated by the gender of the head of household, as long as access to underlying survey micro data can be obtained.",,"Since 2012, under the auspices of Sustainable Energy for All, the World Bank and the International Energy Agency worked on the development of the SE4ALL Global Tracking Framework in close collaboration with a consortium of 24 international agencies (Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves (GACC), Global Water Partnership (GWP), International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), International Network on Gender and Sustainable Energy (Energia), International Partnership for Energy Efficiency Cooperation (IPEEC), International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), Practical Action, Renewable Energy Network for the 21st Century (REN21), Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI), UN Energy, United Nations Development Program (UNDP), United Nations Foundation (UNF), United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), UN Statistics, World Energy Council (WEC) and the World Health Organization (WHO)). The consortium has also had discussions with UN Habitat, UNESCO and the five UN Regional Commissions (ECLAC, ESCAP, ESCWA, UNECA, UNECE) regarding their incorporation into the consortium going forward. \nThe Global Tracking Framework developed a series of indicators to measure the three SE4ALL objectives that align closely with those proposed to measure the SDG7 targets. Data was collected on these indicators for the period 1990-2012 for more than 180 countries worldwide and is publicly available at the data platform cited below. The SE4ALL Global Tracking Framework has already been published in two editions: the 2013 Report covering the baseline period 1990- 2010, and the 2015 report updating progress from 2010-2012. \nIn future, more refined data on the source of electricity obtainable through the Multi-Tier Framework for Measurement of Energy Access will make it possible also to understand the extent to which service is being provided by off-grid renewable energy, which will be a useful input into measurement of indicator 7.2 on renewable energy, as has been noted by IRENA.","Global Tracking Framework Report (2013) \nhttp://trackingenergy4all.worldbank.org \nGlobal Tracking Framework Report (2015) \nhttp://trackingenergy4all.worldbank.org/ \nGlobal Tracking Framework database (2015) \nhttp://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/sustainable-energy-for-all \nMulti-Tier Framework for Measuring Energy Access, \nhttps://www.esmap.org/node/55526",,,,,,,,,SE4ALL Global Tracking Framework Consortium,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  7.1,TRUE,7,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-7.pdf,4,"By 2030, ensure universal access to affordable, reliable and modern energy services.",7.1.2,Proportion of population with primary reliance on clean fuels and technology,World Health Organization,UN Energy,"The percentage of population with primary reliance on clean fuels and technology at the household level. \nFrom non-solid fuels to clean fuels \nCurrent global data collection focuses on the primary fuel used for cooking, categorized as solid or non-solid fuels, where solid fuels are considered polluting and non-modern, while non-solid fuels are considered clean. This single measure captures a good part of the lack of access to clean cooking fuels, but fails to collect data on type of device or technology is used for cooking, and also fails to capture other polluting forms of energy use in the home such as those used for lighting and heating. \nNew evidence-based normative guidance from the WHO ( i.e. WHO Guidelines for indoor air quality guidelines: household fuel combustion), highlights the importance of addressing both fuel and the technology for adequately protecting public health. These guidelines provide technical recommendations in the form of emissions targets for as to what fuels and technology (stove, lamp, and so on) combinations in the home are clean. These guidelines also recommend against the use of unprocessed coal and discourage the use kerosene (a non-solid but highly polluting fuel) in the home. They also recommend that all major household energy end uses (e.g. cooking, space heating, lighting) use efficient fuels and technology combinations to ensure health benefits. \nFor this reason, the technical recommendations in the WHO guidelines, access to modern cooking solution in the home will be defined as ""access to clean fuels and technologies"" rather than ""access to non-solid fuels."" This shift will help ensure that health and other ""nexus"" benefits are better counted, and thus realized. \nDefinition \nPercent of population with primary reliance on clean* fuels and technologies at the household level. \n*""Clean"" is defined by the emission rate targets and specific fuel recommendations (i.e. against unprocessed coal and kerosene) included in the normative guidance WHO guidelines for indoor air quality: household fuel combustion.","The indicator is calculated as the number of people using clean fuels and technologies for cooking, heating and lighting divided by total population reporting that any cooking, heating or lighting, expressed as percentage. \n\n Method of computation \nThe indicator is modelled with household survey data compiled by WHO. The information on cooking fuel use and cooking practices comes from about 800 nationally representative survey and censuses. Survey sources include Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) and Living Standards Measurement Surveys (LSMS), Multi-Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS), the World Health Survey (WHS), and other nationally developed and implemented surveys. \nEstimates of primary cooking energy for the total, urban and rural population for a given year are obtained separately using a multilevel model. The model only accounts for regions, countries and time as a spline function, and estimates are restricted to values ranging from zero to one. More details on the model are published elsewhere (Bonjour et al, 2013). \nEstimates for countries with no available surveys were obtained as follows: \n\tWhen survey data is available for a country, the regional populationweighted mean is used to derive aggregate estimates at a regional or global level, however no country point estimate is given for that country is reported \n\tCountries classified as high-income with a Gross National Income (GNI) of more than US$ 12,746.- per capita are assumed to have made a complete transition to using clean fuels and technologies as the primary domestic energy source for cooking and the primary reliance on polluting (unclean) fuels and technologies use is reported to be less than 5% and assumed as zero for regional and global estimates. \nFor estimating the fraction of the population relying on clean fuels and technologies for heating and lighting, the same methodology using survey data to derive country estimates for a particular year will be used using the same above mentioned assumptions.","Primary reliance on clean fuels and technologies\n Cooking, lighting and heating represent a large share of household energy use across the low- and middle-income countries. For cooking and heating, households typically rely on solid fuels (such as wood, charcoal, biomass) or kerosene paired with inefficient technologies (e.g. open fires, stoves, space heaters or lamps). It is well known that reliance on such inefficient energy for cooking, heating and lighting is associated with high levels of household (indoor) air pollution. The use of inefficient fuels for cooking alone is estimated to cause over 4 million deaths annually, mainly among women and children. This is more than TB, HIV and malaria combined. These adverse health impacts can be avoided by adopting clean fuels and technologies for all main household energy end-or in some circumstances by adopting advanced combustion cook stoves (i.e. those which achieve the emission rates targets provided by the WHO guidelines) and adopting strict protocols for their safe use. Given the importance of clean and safe household energy use as a human development issue, universal access to energy among the technical practitioner community is currently taken to mean access to both electricity and clean fuels and technologies for cooking, heating and lighting. For this reason, clean cooking forms part of the universal access objective under the UN Secretary General's Sustainable Energy for All initiative.",,,,,,,"Access to clean fuels and technologies \nPrimary household fuels and technologies, particularly for cooking, is routinely collected at the national levels in most countries using censuses and surveys. Household surveys used include: United States Agency for International Development (USAID)-supported Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS); United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)-supported Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS); WHO-supported World Health Surveys (WHS); and other reliable and nationally representative country surveys. The World Health Organization is the agency that has taken responsibility for compiling a database of statistics on access to clean and polluting fuels and technologies harvested from the full global body of household surveys for cooking, heating and lighting. Currently, the WHO Database covers cooking energy for 157 countries and one territory for the period 1970-2015 and is updated regularly and publicly available. For lighting, the WHO database includes data for 76 countries for the period 1963-2014. For heating, the WHO database includes data for 16 countries for the period 1986 ' 2012. Presently WHO is working with national surveying agencies, country statistical offices and other stakeholders (e.g. researchers) to enhance multipurpose household survey instruments to gather data on the fuels and technologies used for heating and lighting.",,,"Disaggregated estimates for different end-uses (i.e. cooking, heating* and lighting*). (*With expected improvements in household surveys, this will be possible for heating and lighting for all countries.) \nDisaggregation of access to clean fuel and technologies for cooking by rural or urban place of residence is possible for all countries. \nGender disaggregation by main user (i.e. cook) of cooking energy will be available with expected improvements in household surveys \nGender disaggregation of head of household for cooking, lighting and heating is available",Coverage of 157 countries is available through the WHO Global Household Energy Database. The Sustainable Energy for All Global Tracking Framework reports clean cooking fuel and technology access rates based on WHO data every two years.,"Access to non-solid fuels\n The indicator uses the type of primary fuels and technologies used for cooking, heating, and lighting as a practical surrogate for estimating human exposure to household (indoor) air pollution and its related disease burden, as it is not currently possible to obtain nationally representative samples of indoor concentrations of criteria pollutants, such as fine particulate matter and carbon monoxide. However epidemiological studies provide a science-based evidence for establishing those estimates using these surrogates. \nThe indicator is based on the main type of fuel and technology used for cooking as cooking occupies the largest share of overall household energy needs. However, many households use more than one type of fuel and stove for cooking and, depending on climatic and geographical conditions, heating with polluting fuels can also be a contributor to household (indoor) air pollution levels. In addition, lighting with kerosene, a very polluting and hazardous fuel is also often used, and in some countries is the main fuel used for cooking. \nWhile the existing global household survey evidence base provides a good starting point for tracking household energy access for cooking fuel, it also presents a number of limitations that will need to be addressed over time. Currently there is a limited amount of available data capturing the type of fuel and devices used in the home for heating and lighting. Accordingly WHO in cooperation with World Bank, and the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, is leading a survey enhancement process with representatives from country statistical offices and national household surveying agencies (e.g. DHS, MICS, LSMS) to better gather efficiently and harmoniously information on the fuels and technologies for cooking, heating and lighting. This process is currently in the piloting phase with expected rollout of the final household surveys questions (~6 questions in total) expected in the coming year. These few questions will replace and slightly expand the current set of questions commonly used on national multipurpose surveys to assess household energy. \nSubstantial progress has already been made toward developing and piloting a new methodology known as the Multi-Tier Framework for Measuring Energy Access (World Bank) which is able to capture the affordability and reliability of energy access explicitly referenced in the language of SDG7 and harnesses the normative guidance in the WHO guidelines to benchmark tiers of energy access. The methodology for the Multi-Tier Framework for Measuring Energy Access has already been published based on a broad consultative exercise and represents a consensus view across numerous international agencies working in the field. A first Global Energy Access Survey using this methodology has already been launched and is underway expecting to yield results by early 2017.","Energy is a service provided at the household, rather than individual level. Nonetheless, it is used differentially by men and women and has different impacts on their health and well-being. What will be possible, in principle, is to report energy access disaggregated by the main user of cooking energy. \nIn addition, WHO's Household energy database includes country data from thirty countries on the time spent by children collecting fuelwood and water disaggregated by sex. With the improvements in data collection via the aforementioned survey harmonization process, data will be available reporting time spent exclusively on fuel collection rather than in combination with water collection.",,"Since 2012, under the auspices of Sustainable Energy for All, the World Bank and the International Energy Agency worked on the development of the SE4ALL Global Tracking Framework in close collaboration with a consortium of 24 international agencies (Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves (GACC), Global Water Partnership (GWP), International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), International Network on Gender and Sustainable Energy (Energia), International Partnership for Energy Efficiency Cooperation (IPEEC), International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), Practical Action, Renewable Energy Network for the 21st Century (REN21), Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI), UN Energy, United Nations Development Program (UNDP), United Nations Foundation (UNF), United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), World Energy Council (WEC) and the World Health Organization (WHO)). The consortium has also had discussions with UN Habitat, UNESCO and the five UN Regional Commissions (ECLAC, ESCAP, ESCWA, UNECA, UNECE) regarding their incorporation into the consortium going forward. \nThe Global Tracking Framework developed a series of indicators to measure the three SE4ALL objectives that align closely with those proposed to measure the SDG7 targets. Data was collected on these indicators for the period 1990-2012 for more than 180 countries worldwide and is publicly available at the data platform cited below. The SE4ALL Global Tracking Framework has already been published in two editions: the 2013 Report covering the baseline period 1990- 2010, and the 2015 report updating progress from 2010-2012. \nThe GTF is a more extensive survey assessment of energy access in the home, permitting a more in-depth analysis of the factors contributing to clean household energy access and are an important complement to the national, regional and global estimates provided by WHO. In future, the more refined data on clean cooking obtained through the Multi-Tier Framework for Measurement of Energy Access, will serve as an important complement to the current enhancement and harmonization of the national surveys (e.g. DHS, MICS, LSMS) and census which will further facilitate the monitoring of both the fuel and technology used for cooking and lighting.","\tGlobal Tracking Framework report (2013) http://trackingenergy4all.worldbank.org/ \n\tGlobal Tracking Framework Report (2015) http://trackingenergy4all.worldbank.org/ \n\tGlobal Tracking Framework database (2015) http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/sustainable-energy-for-all \n\tMulti-Tier Framework for Measuring Energy Access, https://www.esmap.org/node/55526 \n\tWHO Guidelines for indoor air quality: Household Fuel Combustion, WHO (2014) http://www.who.int/indoorair/guidelines/hhfc/en/ \n\tBonjour S, Adair-Rohani H, Wolf J, Bruce NG, Mehta S, Pr'ss-Ust'n A, Lahiff M, Rehfuess EA, Mishra V, Smith KR. Solid Fuel Use for Household Cooking: Country and Regional Estimates for 1980-2010. Environ Health Perspect (2013): .doi:10.1289/ehp.1205987.) \n\tPopulation using solid fuels meta-data, WHO http://apps.who.int/gho/indicatorregistry/App_Main/view_indicator.aspx?iid=318",,,,,,,,,SE4ALL Global Tracking Framework Consortium,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  7.2,TRUE,7,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-7.pdf,10,"By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix.",7.2.1,Udio obnovljive energije u ukupnoj finalnoj potrošnji energije,International Energy Agency,IRENA,"The renewable energy share in total final consumption is the percentage of final consumption of energy that is derived from renewable resources. It is calculated by dividing consumption of energy from all renewable sources by total final energy consumption. Renewable energy consumption includes consumption from: hydro, solid biofuels, wind, solar, liquid biofuels, biogas, geothermal, marine and waste. Total final consumption of energy is calculated from national balances and statistics as total final consumption minus non-energy use. \nRenewable energy consumption is derived from three tables of the IEA world energy statistics and balances: total final consumption, electricity output and heat output. All volumes reported in the total final consumption table are taken as reported. Since volumes for electricity and heat in the final consumption table are not broken down by technology, electricity and heat output tables are used instead to break down final consumption of electricity and heat by technology. The allocation by technology is done by deriving the share of technology in electricity and heat output tables and multiplying that share by final energy consumption of electricity and heat, respectively. For instance, if total final consumption table reports 150 TJ for waste energy, while total final consumption of electricity is 400 TJ and heat 100 TJ, and the share of waste in total electricity output is 10 percent and 5 percent in heat, the total reported number for waste consumption will be 195 TJ (150 TJ+400TJ*10%+100TJ*5%). The Global Tracking Framework Report (2013) provides more details on the suggested methodology for defining and measuring renewable energy (Chapter 4, Section 1, page 201-202).",,"The target ""By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix"" impacts all three dimensions of sustainable development. Renewable energy technologies represent a major element in strategies for greening economies everywhere in the world and for tackling the critical global problem of climate change. A number of definitions of renewable energy exist; what they have in common is highlighting as renewable all forms of energy that their consumption does not deplete their availability in the future. These include solar, wind, ocean, hydropower, geothermal resources, and bioenergy (in the case of bioenergy, which can be depleted, sources of bioenergy can be replaced within a short to medium-term frame). Importantly, this indicator focuses on the amount of renewable energy actually consumed rather than the capacity for renewable energy production, which cannot always be fully utilized. By focusing on consumption by the end user, it avoids the distortions caused by the fact that conventional energy sources are subject to significant energy losses along the production chain.",,,,,,,"Data on renewable energy consumption are available through national Energy Balances produced by the International Energy Agency and UN Statistics for more than 180 countries. The energy balances make it possible to trace all the different sources and uses of energy at the national level. \nSome technical assistance may be needed to improve these statistics, particularly in the case of renewable energy sources. Household surveys (in combination with the measurement of other indicators) would be one feasible approach to filling in data gaps.",,,"Disaggregation of the data on consumption of renewable energy, e.g. by resource and end-use sector, could provide insights into other dimensions of the goal, such as affordability and reliability. For solar energy, it may also be of interest to disaggregate between grid and off-grid capacity.","Between the various existing data sources, primarily the IEA Energy Balances and the UN Energy Statistics Database, annual total and renewable energy consumption for every country and area can be collected. The Sustainable Energy for All Global Tracking Framework is reporting this indicator at a global level between 2010 and 2030.","Comments with regard to specific renewable energy resources: \n\tSolar energy consumption includes solar PV and solar thermal \n\tLiquid biofuel energy consumption includes biogasoline, biodiesels and other liquid biofuels \n\tWaste energy consumption is defined in IEA statistics as renewable municipal waste \n\tSolid biofuels for traditional uses is defined as solid biofuels consumed in the residential sector of non- OECD countries. It includes the following categories in the IEA statistics: primary solid biofuels, charcoal and nonspecified primary biofuels and waste. \n\tSolid biofuels for modern uses is defined as all solid biofuels that are not consumed in the residential sector of non-OECD countries. It includes the following categories in the IEA statistics: primary solid biofuels, charcoal and non-specified primary biofuels and waste. \n\nLimitations \n\tA limitation with existing renewable energy statistics is that they are not able to distinguish whether renewable energy is being sustainably produced. For example, a substantial share of today's renewable energy consumption comes from the use of wood and charcoal by households in the developing world, which sometimes may be associated with unsustainable forestry practices. There are efforts underway to improve the ability to measure the sustainability of bio-energy, although this remains a significant challenge. \n\tOff-grid renewables data is limited and not sufficiently captured in the national accounts \n\tThe method of allocation of renewable energy consumption from electricity and heat output assumes that the share of transmission and distribution losses are the same between all technologies. However, this is not always true because renewables are usually located in more remote areas from consumption centers and may incur larger losses. \n\tDividing solid biofuels for traditional and modern uses by applying the residential sector use in non- OECD countries is an imperfect measure, yet it is the best approximation possible with the current state of data availability. \n\tMethodological challenges associated with defining and measuring renewable energy are more fully described the Global Tracking Framework (2013) Chapter 4, Section 1, page 194-200.",,,"Since 2012, under the auspices of Sustainable Energy for All, the World Bank and the International Energy Agency worked on the development of the SE4ALL Global Tracking Framework in close collaboration with a consortium of 24 international agencies (Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves (GACC), Global Water Partnership (GWP), International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), International Network on Gender and Sustainable Energy (Energia), International Partnership for Energy Efficiency Cooperation (IPEEC), International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), Practical Action, Renewable Energy Network for the 21st Century (REN21), Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI), UN Energy, United Nations Development Program (UNDP), United Nations Foundation (UNF), United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), UN Statistics, World Energy Council (WEC) and the World Health Organization (WHO)). The consortium has also had discussions with UN Habitat, UNESCO and the five UN Regional Commissions (ECLAC, ESCAP, ESCWA, UNECA, UNECE) regarding their incorporation into the consortium going forward. \nThe Global Tracking Framework developed a series of indicators to measure the three SE4ALL objectives that align closely with those proposed to measure the SDG7 targets. Data was collected on these indicators for the period 1990-2012 for more than 180 countries worldwide and is publicly available at the data platform cited below. The SE4ALL Global Tracking Framework has already been published in two editions: the 2013 Report covering the baseline period 1990- 2010, and the 2015 report updating progress from 2010-2012. \nIn future, more refined data on the source of electricity obtainable through the Multi-Tier Framework for Measurement of Energy Access will make it possible also to understand the extent to which service is being provided by off-grid renewable energy, which will be a useful input into measurement of indicator 7.2 on renewable energy, as noted by IRENA.",\tGlobal Tracking Framework report (2013) http://trackingenergy4all.worldbank.org/ \n\tGlobal Tracking Framework Report (2015) http://trackingenergy4all.worldbank.org/ \n\tGlobal Tracking Framework database (2015) http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/sustainable-energy-for-all \n\tUN Energy Statistics Database http://unstats.un.org/unsd/energy/edbase.htm \n\tIEA Energy Balances and Statistics http://www.iea.org/statistics/topics/energybalances/ \n\tIRENA Renewable Energy Database http://resourceirena.irena.org/gateway/dashboard,,,,,,,,,UN Statistics,,UN Energy,SE4ALL Global Tracking Framework Consortium,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  7.3,TRUE,7,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-7.pdf,13,"By 2030, double the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency.",7.3.1,Energetski intenzitet mjeren kroz primarnu energiju i BDP,International Energy Agency,UN Statistics,"Primary energy intensity is obtained by dividing total primary energy supply over gross domestic product. Total primary energy supply, as defined by the IEA, is made up of production plus net imports minus international marine and aviation bunkers plus-stock changes. For international comparison purposes, GDP is measured in constant terms at purchasing power parity.",,Energy intensity is an indication of how much energy is used to produce one unit of economic output. It is a proxy of the efficiency with which an economy is able to use energy to produce economic output. A lower ratio indicates that less energy is used to produce one unit of output.,,,,,,,"Primary energy supply is typically calculated in the making of national energy balances. Energy balances are available for larger economies from the International Energy Agency and for all countries in the world from UN Statistics, although typically with an additional year of lag.",,,"Disaggregation of energy intensity, e.g. by sector, could provide further insights into progress towards energy efficiency. At present it is only feasible to calculate such sector disaggregations for the following sectors ' industry, residential, transport, agriculture, households ' as reported in the SE4ALL Global Tracking Framework. It would be desirable, over time, to develop more refined sectoral level energy intensity indicators that make it possible to look at energy intensity by industry (e.g. cement, steel) or by type of vehicle (e.g. cars, trucks), for example. Doing so will not be possible without statistical collaboration with the relevant energy consuming sectors. \nDecomposition analysis of energy intensity trends seeks to filter out factors that affect energy demand, such as economy wide scale and structure shifts, form more narrowly defined energy intensity shifts. and applies decomposition analysis to isolate a more refined measure of energy intensity, one that sifts out the temporal shift of relative sector weights. This analysis is also reported in the SE4ALL Global Tracking Framework.",IEA and UN energy balances combined provide primary energy supply data for most countries. GDP data is available for all countries in the World Development Indicators database of the World Bank. The Sustainable Energy for All Global Tracking Framework is reporting this indicator for 181 countries between 2010 and 2030.,"Primary energy intensity level is only an imperfect proxy to energy efficiency indicator. It can be affected by a number of factors, such as climate, structure of the economy, nature of economic activities etc. that are not necessarily linked to pure efficiency.",,,"Since 2012, under the auspices of Sustainable Energy for All, the World Bank and the International Energy Agency worked on the development of the SE4ALL Global Tracking Framework in close collaboration with a consortium of 24 international agencies (Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves (GACC), Global Water Partnership (GWP), International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), International Network on Gender and Sustainable Energy (Energia), International Partnership for Energy Efficiency Cooperation (IPEEC), International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), Practical Action, Renewable Energy Network for the 21st Century (REN21), Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI), UN Energy, United Nations Development Program (UNDP), United Nations Foundation (UNF), United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), UN Statistics, World Energy Council (WEC) and the World Health Organization (WHO)). The consortium has also had discussions with UN Habitat, UNESCO and the five UN Regional Commissions (ECLAC, ESCAP, ESCWA, UNECA, UNECE) regarding their incorporation into the consortium going forward. \nThe Global Tracking Framework developed a series of indicators to measure the three SE4ALL objectives that align closely with those proposed to measure the SDG7 targets. Data was collected on these indicators for the period 1990-2012 for more than 180 countries worldwide and is publicly available at the data platform cited below. The SE4ALL Global Tracking Framework has already been published in two editions: the 2013 Report covering the baseline period 1990- 2010, and the 2015 report updating progress from 2010-2012.",\tGlobal Tracking Framework report (2013) http://trackingenergy4all.worldbank.org/ \n\tGlobal Tracking Framework Report (2015) http://trackingenergy4all.worldbank.org/ \n\tGlobal Tracking Framework database (2015) http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/sustainable-energy-for-all \n\tUN Energy Statistics Database http://unstats.un.org/unsd/energy/edbase.htm \n\tIEA Energy Balances and Statistics http://www.iea.org/statistics/topics/energybalances/,,,,,,,,, UN Energy,,SE4ALL Global Tracking Framework Consortium,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  7.a,FALSE,7,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-7.pdf,15,"By 2030, enhance international cooperation to facilitate access to clean energy research and technology, including renewable energy, energy efficiency and advanced and cleaner fossil-fuel technology, and promote investment in energy infrastructure and clean energy technology.",7.a.1,"International financial flows to developing countries in support of clean energy research and development and renewable energy production, including in hybrid systems",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  7.b,FALSE,7,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-7.pdf,16,"By 2030, expand infrastructure and upgrade technology for supplying modern and sustainable energy services for all in developing countries, in particular least developed countries and small island developing States and landlocked developing countries, in accordance with their respective programmes of support",7.b.1,Investments in energy efficiency as a proportion of GDP and the amount of foreign direct investment in financial transfer for infrastructure and technology to sustainable development services,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  8.1,FALSE,8,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-8.pdf,2,"Sustain per capita economic growth in accordance with national circumstances and, in particular, at least 7 per cent gross domestic product growth per annum in the least developed countries.",8.1.1,Godišnja stopa rasta realnog BDP-a po stanovniku,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  8.2,TRUE,8,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-8.pdf,3,"Achieve higher levels of economic productivity through diversification, technological upgrading and innovation, including through a focus on high-value-added and labour-intensive sectors.",8.2.1,Godišnja stopa rasta realnog BDP-a po zaposleniku ,ILO,,"This indicator is a measure of labour productivity growth, which is computed as the annual growth rate of: Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at market prices for the aggregate economy divided by total employment. Employment refers to the average number of persons with one or more paid jobs during the year. ",,Economic growth in a country can be ascribed either to increased employment or to more production on average by those who are employed. The latter effect can be described through statistics on labour productivity and thereby it is a key measure of economic and labour market performance. ,,,,,,,GDP figures based on National Accounts and employment figures on Household surveys. ,,,Disaggregation by economic sector is feasible. No sex disaggregation. ,The ILO produces global and (flexible) regional estimates of labour productivity growth. ,"Despite common principles that are mostly based on the United Nations System of National Accounts, there are still significant problems in international consistency of national accounts estimates, in particular for economies outside the OECD. This includes: 1) different treatment of output in services sectors: 2) different procedures in correcting output measures for price changes, in particular the use of different weighting systems in obtaining deflators; 3) different degree of coverage of informal economic activities in developing economies and of the underground economy in developed (industrialized) economies in national accounts. As in the case of output estimates, the employment estimates are sensitive to under_coverage of informal or underground activities. ",,The ILO has data for 124 countries. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  8.3,TRUE,8,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-8.pdf,5,"Promote development-oriented policies that support productive activities, decent job creation, entrepreneurship, creativity and innovation, and encourage the formalization and growth of micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises, including through access to financial services.",8.3.1,"Proportion of informal employment in non-agriculture employment, by sex",ILO,,"The share of informal employment in total non-agriculture employment refers to employment in informal jobs expressed as a percentage of total non-agriculture employment. Informal employment comprises persons who in their main or secondary jobs were: (a) Own-account workers, employers and members of producers' cooperatives employed in their own informal sector enterprises. The informal nature of their jobs follows directly from the characteristics of the enterprise; (b) Own-account workers engaged in the production of goods exclusively for own final use by their household (e.g. subsistence farming or do-it-yourself construction of own dwellings), if covered; (c) Contributing family workers, irrespective of whether they work in formal or informal sector enterprises. The informal nature of their jobs is due to the fact that contributing family workers usually do not have explicit, written contracts of employment, and that usually their employment is not subject to labour legislation, social security regulations, collective agreements, etc.; (e) Employees holding informal jobs, whether employed by formal sector enterprises, informal sector enterprises, or as paid domestic workers by households. Employees are considered to have informal jobs if their employment relationship is, in law or in practice, not subject to national labour legislation, income taxation, social protection or entitlement to certain employment benefits (paid annual or sick leave, etc.) for reasons such as: non-declaration of the jobs or the employees; casual jobs or jobs of a limited short duration; jobs with hours of work or wages below a specified threshold (e.g. for social security contributions); employment by unincorporated enterprises or by persons in households; jobs where the employee's place of work is outside the premises of the employer's enterprise (e.g. outworkers without employment contract); or jobs, for which labour regulations are not applied, not enforced, or not complied with for any other reason. Operational criteria used by countries to define informal jobs of employees include lack of coverage by social security system, lack of entitlement to paid annual or sick leave, or lack of written employment contract. ",,"This is considered an important indicator regarding the quality of employment in an economy, and is relevant to developing and developed countries alike. A decreasing share of informal employment indicates progress as regards the proportion of persons employed that generally lack basic social or legal protections or employment benefits, whether they work in the formal sector, informal sector, or households.",,,,,,,"Household surveys (LFS, HIES, LSMS, Integrated HH surveys, etc.).",,,Data are available by sex.,The ILO does not currently produce global and regional estimates on informal employment.,"Given that informal employment is a job-based concept and encompasses those jobs that generally lack basic social or legal protections or employment benefits, which may be found in the formal sector, informal sector or households, the preferred official national data source for this indicator is a household-based labour force survey including the necessary questions specifically designed to capture all the relevant information. Other household surveys with an appropriate employment module including questions targeting informal employment can also be used to obtain the required data. This has a clear impact on data availability, since such collections are not necessarily in place in all countries. Also, given its relatively low volatility, the frequency of data collection and dissemination for the share of informal employment could be less than that required for other key labour market indicators. Furthermore, as informal employment is comprised of several component categories defined by status in employment and type of production unit, it would always be best to analyse this indicator along with statistical information on the levels and changes of its components, since the conclusions might vary significantly depending on these.","As this indicator is disaggregated by sex, it is well-suited for analysis of gender equality issues.",The ILO has data on the share of informal employment for 62 countries.,"For details, refer to the Resolution concerning statistics of employment in the informal sector, available at: http://www.ilo.org/global/statistics-and-databases/standards-and-guidelines/resolutions-adopted-by-internationalconferences-of-labour-statisticians/WCMS_087484/lang--en/index.htm; \nThe Guidelines concerning a statistical definition of informal employment, available at http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---stat/documents/normativeinstrument/wcms_087622.pdf ; \nThe ILO manual Measuring informality: A statistical manual on the informal sector and informal employment, available at: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/---publ/documents/publication/wcms_222979.pdf \nHandbook on Measuring Quality of Employment: A Statistical Framework. (UNECE- CES) http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/stats/documents/ece/ces/2015/4_Add.2_Rev1_Guidelines_on_QoEmployment.pdf",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  8.4,TRUE,8,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-8.pdf,7,"Improve progressively, through 2030, global resource efficiency in consumption and production and endeavour to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation, in accordance with the 10-Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production, with developed countries taking the lead.",8.4.1,"Materijalni otisak, materijalni otisak po glavi stanovnika i materijalni otisak po BDP-u",UNEP,,"Material footprint (MF) is the attribution of global material extraction to domestic final demand of a country. It is calculated as raw material equivalent of imports (RMEIM) plus domestic extraction (DE) minus raw material equivalents of exports (RMEEX). For the attribution of the primary material needs of final demand a global, multi_regional input_output (MRIO) framework is employed. The attribution method based on I_O analytical tools is described in detail in Wiedmann et al. 2015. It is based on the EORA MRIO framework developed by the University of Sydney, Australia (Lenzen et al. 2013) which is an internationally well_established and the most detailed and reliable MRIO framework available to date.",,"Material footprint of consumption reports the amount of primary materials required to serve final demand of a country and can be interpreted as an indicator for the material standard of living/level of capitalization of an economy. Per_capita MF describes the average material use for final demand. DMC and MF need to be looked at in combination as they cover the two aspects of the economy, production and consumption. The DMC reports the actual amount of material in an economy, MF the virtual amount required across the whole supply chain to service final demand. A country can, for instance have a very high DMC because it has a large primary production sector for export or a very low DMC because it has outsourced most of the material intensive industrial processes to other countries. The material footprint corrects for both phenomena.",,,,,,,"Data is available from different national or international datasets in the domain of agriculture, forestry, fisheries, mining and energy statistics. International statistical sources for DMC and MF include the IEA, USGS, FAO and COMTRADE databases.",,,"UNEP has available to it data for a four material categories (biomass, fossil fuels, metal ores, non_metallic minerals) disaggregation of the MF of consumption, for 192 countries. These are currently being made available through the http://www.uneplive.org/material website.","UNEP is publishing a global material flow dataset which includes the DMC indicator. DMC is available for about 180 countries, the seven UNEP world regions and the world for the time period 1970 ' 2010. Data is available at the UNEP online data platform UNEP Live http://www.uneplive.org/material.",,,,"Material footprint is also referred to as Raw Material Consumption (RMC). The DMC indicator and MF indicator are used by EUROSTAT, the government of Japan, the UNEP Office for Asia and the Pacific and the OECD for monitoring their policy efforts in the domains of Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP), resource Efficiency and Green Economy.","EUROSTAT (2013). Economy_wide material flow accounts. Compilation guide 2013. Wiedmann, T., H. Schandl, M. Lenzen, D. Moran, S. Suh, J. West, K. Kanemoto, \n(2013) The Material Footprint of Nations, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. Online before print.'' Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Kanemoto, K., Geschke, A. (2013) Building Eora: A \nGlobal Multi_regional Input_Output Database at High Country and Sector Resolution, Economic Systems Research, 25:1, 20_49.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  8.4,TRUE,8,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-8.pdf,7,"Improve progressively, through 2030, global resource efficiency in consumption and production and endeavour to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation, in accordance with the 10-Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production, with developed countries taking the lead.",8.4.2,"Domaća potrošnja materijala, domaća potrošnja materijala po stanovniku i domaća potrošnja materijala po BDP-u",UNEP,,Domestic Material Consumption (DMC) is a standard material flow accounting (MFA) indicator and reports the apparent consumption of materials in a national economy. It is calculated as direct imports (IM) of material plus domestic extraction (DE) of materials minus direct exports (EX) of materials measured in metric tonnes. DMC measures the amount of materials that are used in economic processes. It does not include materials that are mobilized the process of domestic extraction but do not enter the economic process. DMC is based on official economic statistics and it requires some modelling to adapt the source data to the methodological requirements of the MFA. The accounting standard and accounting methods are set out in the EUROSTAT guidebooks for MFA accounts in the latest edition of 2013. MFA accounting is also part of the central framework of the System of integrated Environmental_ Economic Accounts (SEEA).,,"DMC reports the amount of materials that are used that are used in a national economy. DMC is a territorial (production side) indicator. DMC also presents the amount of material that needs to be handled within an economy, which is either added to material stocks of buildings and transport infrastructure or used to fuel the economy as material throughput. DMC describes the physical dimension of economic processes and interactions. It can also be interpreted as long_term waste equivalent. Per_capita DMC describes the average level of material use in an economy ' an environmental pressure indicator'_'and is also referred to as metabolic profile.",,,,,,,"Data is available from different national or international datasets in the domain of agriculture, forestry, fisheries, mining and energy statistics. International statistical sources for DMC and MF include the IEA, USGS, FAO and COMTRADE databases.",,,"The DMC indicator can be disaggregated into imports, domestic extraction and exports by a large number of material follow categories. At the highest level of aggregation biomass, fossil fuels, metal ores and non_metallic minerals are distinguished. DMC is usually reported for 11 material categories, DE for 44 material categories. The MF indicator can be disaggregated to four main material categories, a varying number of economic sectors whose expenditure require materials and to three domestic final demand sectors (household consumption, government consumption and capital investment) and foreign final demand (i.e. exports).","UNEP is publishing a global material flow dataset which includes the DMC indicator. DMC is available for about 180 countries, the seven UNEP world regions and the world for the time period 1970 ' 2010. Data is available at the UNEP online data platform UNEP Live http://www.uneplive.org/material.",DMC cannot be disaggregated to economic sectors which limits its potential to become a satellite account to the System of National Accounts (SNA).,,,"Material footprint is also referred to as Raw Material Consumption (RMC). The DMC indicator and MF indicator are used by EUROSTAT, the government of Japan, the UNEP Office for Asia and the Pacific and the OECD for monitoring their policy efforts in the domains of Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP), resource Efficiency and Green Economy.","EUROSTAT (2013). Economy_wide material flow accounts. Compilation guide 2013. Wiedmann, T., H. Schandl, M. Lenzen, D. Moran, S. Suh, J. West, K. Kanemoto, \n(2013) The Material Footprint of Nations, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. Online before print.'' Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Kanemoto, K., Geschke, A. (2013) Building Eora: A \nGlobal Multi_regional Input_Output Database at High Country and Sector Resolution, Economic Systems Research, 25:1, 20_49.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  8.5,TRUE,8,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-8.pdf,10,"By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men, including for young people and persons with disabilities, and equal pay for work of equal value.",8.5.1,"Prosječna zarada po satu zaposlenika prema spolu, zanimanju,starosti i osoba s invaliditetom",ILO,,"The gender wage gap measures the relative difference between the average hourly earnings for men and the average hourly earnings for women. It is computed as the difference between the gross average hourly earnings of male and female employees expressed as percentage of gross average hourly earnings of male employees. Earnings refers to regular remuneration received from employers, in cash and in kind, and includes direct wages and salaries for time worked or work done, remuneration for time not worked (e.g. paid annual leave), as well as bonuses and gratuities that are regularly received. It excludes contributions paid by employers to social security and pension schemes in respect of their employees, benefits received by employees under these schemes, and severance and termination pay.",,"The gender wage gap measures the extent to which the wages of men differ from those of women and therefore directly addresses the target of ""equal pay for work of equal value"". When the gender pay gap equals ""0"", it denotes equality of earnings. Positive values reflect the extent to which women's earnings fall short of those received by men, where a value closer to ""100"" denotes more inequality than a value closer to ""0"". Negative values reflect the extent to which women's earnings are higher than men's.",,,,,,,"Household surveys (LFS, HIES, LSMS, Integrated HH surveys, etc.), Establishment surveys, Administrative records.",,,Data are available by gender and occupation.,"The ILO has estimates of wages for the world as a whole and by regional groupings, although these are not currently disaggregated by gender.","The gender wage gap is calculated for paid employees only, as earnings data are typically available for employees. Hence, the gender pay gap does not cover large numbers of own-account workers or employers, especially in the informal sector where income differences between men and women may be larger. The gender pay gap does not capture either income differences between the sexes that result from uneven access to paid employment. For instance, when men are overrepresented among paid employees (with relatively high incomes) and women are over-represented among the selfemployed in the informal sector (with relatively low incomes), the overall gap in incomes is likely to be greater than what can be captured by the gender wage gap.","As this indicator provides a direct comparison of wages between men and women, it is well-suited for analysis of gender equality issues.",The ILO has data on hourly earnings and gender wage gap for 66 countries.,"For details, refer to the Resolution concerning an integrated system of wage statistics, available at: \nhttp://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---stat/documents/normativeinstrument/wcms_087496.pdf \nDecent Work Indicators: ILO Manual - Second Version, available at: \nwww.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---stat/documents/publication/wcms_223121.pdf",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  8.5,TRUE,8,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-8.pdf,11,"By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men, including for young people and persons with disabilities, and equal pay for work of equal value.",8.5.2,Stopa nezaposlenosti prema spolu i dobi i stopa nezaposlenosti osoba sa invaliditetom,ILO,,"The unemployment rate is calculated by dividing the total number of unemployed (for a country or a specific group of workers) by the corresponding labour force, which itself is the sum of the total persons employed and unemployed in the group. Persons in unemployment are defined as all those of working age who were not in employment, carried out activities to seek employment during a specified recent period and were currently available to take up employment given a job opportunity.",,"Information on unemployment by age illustrates the different dimensions of the lack of jobs for people of a given age group. For example, in a country where the youth unemployment rate is high and the ratio of the youth unemployment rate to the adult unemployment rate is close to one, it may be concluded that the problem of unemployment is not specific to youth, but is country-wide. The problem of unemployment is unequally distributed when, in addition to a high youth unemployment rate, the proportion of youth unemployment in total unemployment is high. In this case, employment policies might usefully be directed towards easing the entry of young people into the world of work.",,,,,,,"Household surveys (LFS, HIES, LSMS, Integrated HH surveys, etc.), Official estimates, Administrative records.",,,Data are available by gender and age.,The ILO has estimates of the unemployed (number and rate) disaggregated by sex and age (youth and adult) for the world as a whole and by (flexible) regional groupings. The global and regional estimates are based on both real and imputed values.,"There are a variety of issues affecting cross-country comparability, including but not limited to different sources, measurement differences, conceptual variation, survey coverage and collection methodology.","Information on unemployment by sex shows the difficulty to enter the labour market by gender, revealing in some cases a harder situation for women, which is directly linked to a country's social and cultural aspects and traditions.",The ILO has data for 224 countries.,"For details, refer to the Resolution concerning statistics of work, employment and labour underutilization, available at http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---stat/documents/normativeinstrument/wcms_230304.pdf",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  8.6,TRUE,8,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-8.pdf,12,"By 2020, substantially reduce the proportion of youth not in employment, education or training.",8.6.1,"Udio mladih (15-24) koji nisu zaposleni, ne obrazuju se i ne osposobljavaju se",ILO,,The NEET is defined as the percentage of youth (15-24 years old) who are not in employment and not in education or training.,,"NEET provides a measure of youth who are outside the educational system, not in training and not in employment, and thus serves as a broader measure of potential youth labour market entrants than youth unemployment. A high NEET rate as compared with the youth unemployment rate could mean that a large number of youth are discouraged workers, or do not have access to education or training. A high NEET rate among females as compared with males is often an indication of gender imbalances, with female youth engaged in household chores such as washing clothes, cooking, cleaning and taking care of siblings.",,,,,,,"Household surveys (LFS, HIES, LSMS, Integrated HH surveys, etc.), Administrative records.",,,Data are available by gender.,The ILO does not currently produce global and regional estimates for NEET.,"In practice, many national statistics offices apply definitions of youth which differ from the international standard. ","As this indicator is disaggregated by sex, it is well-suited for analysis of gender equality issues.",The ILO has data for 88 countries.,Decent Work Indicators: ILO Manual - Second Version \nhttp://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---stat/documents/publication/wcms_223121.pdf,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  8.7,TRUE,8,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-8.pdf,13,"Take immediate and effective measures to eradicate forced labour, end modern slavery and human trafficking and secure the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labour, including recruitment and use of child soldiers, and by 2025 end child labour in all its forms.",8.7.1,"Proportion and number of children aged 5-17 years engaged in child labour, by sex and age",ILO,UNICEF,"From ILO: \nThe term child labour reflects the engagement of children in prohibited work and, more generally, in types of work to be eliminated as socially and morally undesirable as guided by national legislation, the ILO Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138), and the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182), their respective supplementing Recommendations (Nos 146 and 190), and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. \nThe statistical measurement framework for child labour is structured around (i) the age of the child; (ii) the productive activities by the child, including their nature and the conditions under which these are performed, and the duration of engagement by the child in such activities. \nFor the purpose of statistical measurement, children engaged in child labour include all persons aged 5 to 17 years who, during a specified time period, were engaged in one or more of the following categories of activities: \n\t(a) worst forms of child labour, (as described in paragraphs 17'30, 18th ICLS resolution); \n\t(b) employment below the minimum age, (as described in paragraphs 32 and 33 of the 18th ICLS resolution); and \n\t(c) hazardous unpaid household services, (as described in paragraphs 36 and 37 of the 18th ICLS resolution), applicable where the general production boundary is used as the measurement framework. \n\n From UNICEF: \n This indicator provides the proportion of children aged 5-17 years who are engaged in child labour. It is calculated by dividing the number of children aged 5-17 years who are reported to have been engaged in child labour in the past week by the total number of children aged 5-17 in the population.",,"From ILO: \nTo monitor the progress against the target 8.7. Indicator is straightforward to interpret, as it gives the headcount of child labourers at national, regional and global levels. \n\n From UNICEF: \n Children around the world are routinely engaged in paid and unpaid forms of work that are not harmful to them. However, children are considered to be involved in child labour when they are either too young to work or are involved in activities harmful to their health and development. Children's involvement in hazardous work can compromise their physical, mental, social and educational development. \nThe issue of child labour is guided by three main international conventions: ILO Convention No. 138 concerning minimum age for admission to employment and Recommendation No. 146 (1973); ILO Convention No. 182 concerning the prohibition and immediate action for the elimination of the worst forms of child labour and Recommendation No. 190 (1999); and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 32), including its Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. These conventions frame the concept of child labour and form the basis for child labour legislation enacted by countries that are signatories. \nAs per the 2008 Resolution concerning Statistics of Child Labour, the operation definition of child labour is based on number of hours spent working and working conditions, and encompasses both engagement in economic activities as well as household chores.",,,,,,,"From ILO: \nHousehold surveys (Child Labour Surveys, Mixed Surveys, LFS, HIES, LSMS, Integrated HH surveys, etc.). \n\n From UNICEF: \n Household surveys such as UNICEF-supported MICS, DHS and ILO-supported SIMPOC have been collecting data on this indicator in low- and middle-income countries since around 2000. Many countries also produce national labour estimates and reports that often include data on child labour and/or employment among children.",,,"From ILO: \nNational estimates: Total and by age group, gender, area of residence, sector and status in employment \nGlobal estimates: Total and by country, region, sector, sex, age group and national income level. \n\n From UNICEF: \n Data are available by age, sex, place of residence and wealth quintiles.","From ILO: \nData for global and regional monitoring are available through nationally-representative national household surveys. UNICEF maintains a global database on this issue and supports data collection for this indicator through MICS. . \n\n From UNICEF: \n UNICEF has estimates for the percentage of children aged 5-17 years who are engaged in child labour disaggregated by age, sex, 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 114 countries.",From ILO: \nThe indicator is limited in terms of capturing the worst forms of child labour other than hazardous. \n\n From UNICEF: \n There are existing tools and mechanisms for data collection that countries have implemented to monitor the situation with regards to this indicator. \nIt is recognized that the target is broader and inclusive of more concepts than just child labour but it is recommended that the indicator should be focused on hazardous work since there is currently no solid or internationally agreed methodologies for collecting information on the worst forms of child labour or the involvement of children in armed conflicts. The proposed indicator will be indicative of progress towards achieving the target.,"From ILO: \nThe indicator permits the separate monitoring progress by sex, in turn permitting the evolution of gender disparities in child labour. \n\n From UNICEF: \n As this indicator is disaggregated by sex, it is well-suited for analysis of gender equality issues.",,"From ILO: \nILO-IPEC (2013). Making progress against child labour. Global estimates and trends 2000-2012. International Labour Office, International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC) - Geneva: ILO, 2013. http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---ipec/documents/publication/wcms_221513.pdf \nDiallo, Y., Etienne, A., and Mehran, F. (2013). Global child labour trends 2008 to 2012. International Labour Office, International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC) - Geneva: ILO, 2013. http://www.ilo.org/ipec/Informationresources/WCMS_IPEC_PUB_23015/lang--en/index.htm \n18th ICLS resolution http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---stat/documents/normativeinstrument/wcms_112458.pdf \n\n From UNICEF: \n UNICEF website on child labour data: \nhttp://data.unicef.org/child-protection/child-labour.html",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  8.8,TRUE,8,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-8.pdf,15,"Protect labour rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers, including migrant workers, in particular women migrants, and those in precarious employment.",8.8.1,"Frequency rates of fatal and non-fatal occupational injuries, by sex and migrant status",ILO,Global Migration Group,"An occupational injury refers to any personal injury, disease or death resulting from an occupational accident, which is an unexpected and unplanned occurrence, including acts of violence, arising out of or in connection with work which results in one or more workers incurring a personal injury, disease or death. A fatal occupational injury is the result of an occupational accident where death occurred within one year from the day of the accident, whereas non-fatal occupational injuries entail a loss of working time. The frequency rates of fatal and non-fatal occupational injury are calculated as the number of new cases of fatal and non-fatal occupational injury during the reference year respectively, divided by the total number of hours worked by the workers in the reference group during the reference year, multiplied by 1,000,000. The time lost due to occupational injuries refers to the total number of calendar days during which those persons temporarily incapacitated due to occupational injuries were unable to work, excluding the day of the accident, up to a maximum of one year.",,"Occupational safety and health at work are vital components of decent work. The frequency rates of fatal and non-fatal occupational injuries and the time lost due to occupational injuries provide an indication of the extent to which workers are protected from work-related hazards and risks, and present information that is essential for planning preventive measures. Possible under-reporting of occupational injuries should be kept in mind when interpreting the data, and proper systems should be put in place to ensure the best reporting and data quality.",,,"8.8 Protect labour rights and promote safe and secure working environment of all workers, including migrant workers, particularly women migrants, and those in precarious employment",,,,,,,"From ILO: \nData are currently available by gender (as well as by economic activity and occupation), but not by migrant status. However, as the target is explicit in this dimension, countries increasingly should be compiling information to allow this disaggregation. \n\n From Global Migration Working Group: \nDisaggregated reporting by migratory status (citizenship status or nativity status)",The ILO does not currently produce global and regional estimates on occupational injuries.,"From ILO: \nBecause data quality issues may be present, it may be more relevant to analyze indicator trends rather than levels. When measured over a period of time, the data can reveal progress or deterioration in occupational safety and health, and thus point to the effectiveness of prevention measures. This indicator is volatile and strong annual fluctuations may occur due to unexpected but significant accidents or national calamities. The underlying trend should therefore be analysed. \n\n From Global Migration Working Group: \nMuch could be covered by introducing new questions into existing surveys, but in some instances new surveys might be needed. Administrative records may need to be adjusted to distinguish between migrants and non-migrants.","As this indicator is disaggregated by sex, it is well-suited for analysis of gender equality issues.","From ILO:\nThe ILO has data on the frequency rates of fatal occupational injuries for 117 countries; on the frequeny rates of nonfatal occupational injuries for 89 countries; and on the time lost due to occupational injuries for 107 countries. The breakdown by migrant status is not currently available..\n\nFrom Global Migration Working Group:\nLabour force surveys, administrative records.","For further details, refer to the Resolution concerning statistics of occupational injuries (resulting from occupational accidents), available at http://www.ilo.org/global/statistics-and-databases/standards-and-guidelines/resolutions-adoptedby-international-conferences-of-labour-statisticians/WCMS_087528/lang--en/index.htm",,10.7,,,,,,,,National Statistical Offices,, Ministry of Labour,Ministry of Health,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  8.8,TRUE,8,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-8.pdf,16,"Protect labour rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers, including migrant workers, in particular women migrants, and those in precarious employment.",8.8.2,"Level of national compliance of labour rights (freedom of association and collective bargaining) based on International Labour Organization (ILO) textual sources and national legislation, by sex and migrant status",,,see report,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  8.9,TRUE,8,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-8.pdf,46,"By 2030, devise and implement policies to promote sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products.",8.9.1,Udio turizma u ukupnom BDP-u i stopi rasta,UNWTO,,Tourism Direct GDP (TDGDP) is defined as the sum of the part of gross value added (at basic prices) generated by all industries in response to internal tourism consumption plus the amount of net taxes on products and imports included within the value of this expenditure at purchasers' prices (TSA: RMF 2008 para. 4.96). \nPresenting this economic contribution of tourism as a share of GDP shows the relative size of the tourism sector in the economy.,( TDGDP / GDP ) * 100,"Rationale \nTarget 8.9 has several dimensions but the essence of the target seems to be on promoting sustainable tourism [that ...]. It is recognized that the suggested indicator does not cater to all dimensions of the target, but finding one indicator that would do so seems unviable, certainly over the short-medium term. \nThere is the added challenge that the concept ""sustainable tourism"" is mainly a policy construct and not defined nor part of an established or internationally conceptual/statistical framework at this point. Even though UNWTO together with a number of countries, UNSD and OECD, and counting on the support of the UNCEEA are putting put in motion an initiative towards developing the measurement of the relationship between tourism and sustainability, notably through linking SEEA and TSA, it seems that the production of internationally comparable data on (something that could approximate for) ""sustainable tourism"" in a significant number of countries still has some years to go. \nFor the meantime, the suggested indicator (in its two parts, on tourism related GDP and jobs) seems to be a sensible approximation because (a) it is a good conceptual fit to some key dimensions of the target (b) it stems from a systems approach and is based on sound internationally agreed methodology, and (c) there is a significant number of countries already producing data for this indicator. In addition, the suggested indicator (tourism related GDP and jobs) is in line with Goal 8's general focus on economic growth and employment. \nFinally, the TDGDP/GDP part of this indicator can complement Target 14.7's indicator: ""Fisheries as a % of GDP"" in order to cater to tourism dimension of this target. \n\n Interpretation \n Target 8.9 has several dimensions; this caters to the dimension: tourism; promote [...] tourism. The value of the economic contribution of tourism captured by this indicator, and (relative) increases or decreases in it, could indicate the degree to which tourism is being successfully promoted. This indicator is useful for policy on tourism at national level and the level of sub-national regions as it gives the only credible measure of the economic contribution of tourism, which can be compared to GDP contributions of other economic activities. The indicator has been found especially useful in promoting and mainstreaming tourism in policy agendas at all levels. The indicator can also be compared across countries, although true international comparability of the figures needs to be improved.",,,,,,,"The indicator already exists. The indicator is sourced from countries' Tourism Satellite Account, which is a satellite account to the National Accounts. About 60 countries have some kind of TSA exercise and data available on this indicator, as shown in an international TSA data compilation exercise UNWTO realized in 2010. Eurostat and OECD have also occasionally collected data on this indicator. The indicator is currently not structurally compiled into an international dataset but UNWTO will start on this over the short term. Some countries cannot produce TDGDP but have Tourism Direct Value Added (% Total Value Added), which can be used as an approximation.",,,"To the extent that a TSA is available, TDGDP is derived from the productive activities that cater directly to tourism and so it could be possible to disaggregate by tourism industries (e.g. accommodation for visitors, the different kinds of passenger transportation, etc.). Sub-national disaggregation/estimates of Tourism Direct GDP are possible and there are a number of subnational regions that have information on this. However, there is no consensus on a methodology for doing this in a standardized way, compromising international comparability, although UNWTO is working on this (through the INRouTe project). In any case, it seems that collection of data would be warranted only for those regions that consider tourism a significant (economic) activity. Like GDP, it is not possible to disaggregate this by gender.",,"Given that a growing number of countries produce Tourism Satellite Account (TSA), data on (both parts of) the suggested indicators could become available in many more countries in the near future. \nThough inherent to much statistical production, the lag in production of data for Tourism Direct GDP by countries should be noted. The data demands (detailed input-output or supply and use tables) for setting up a TSA mean that it is often not possible to have current data nor frequent updating of the TSA. A solution some countries chose is to produce estimates of TSA aggregates, in between reference years, to have more current data and to produce a time series. \nTDGDP/GDP tends to not show large variations from one year to the next and variations may stem from the numerator and/or denominator. This could warrant considering the indicator in different forms: absolute value, % GDP and % change. \nThe suggested indicator (on tourism related GDP and jobs) as defined above can be supplemented with information on: \n\tNumber of full-time equivalent jobs (FTE jobs) in tourism industries. This is valuable because tourism tends to have a large share of part-time work and seasonality, elements related to sustainability. UNWTO compiles country data on FTE jobs in tourism industries, by gender and employed/self-employed, though coverage is still low. \n\tnumber of persons employed in tourism industries (growth rate, by gender, % total) \n\tTDGDP per employed person in tourism industries (growth rate), as the tourism equivalent of the suggested indicator for Target 8.2: 'Growth rate of GDP per employed person' \nThese indicators are methodologically robust and based on existing internationally agreed definitions, classifications and practices. The methodology behind the indicators (data sources, methods of computation, treatment of missing values, regional estimates, etc.) is well documented and readily available. \nMoreover, these indictors can be collected from well-established sources. The statistical capacity for data collection and analysis to support the indicator already partially exists in countries that conduct regular labour Force Surveys. But it is also true that in order to produce regular estimates of persons employed in the tourism industries, many countries would need launching pilot projects supported with necessary resources and test the indicators produced.",,,"The above suggested indicator (both parts, on GDP and jobs) is firmly based in the International Recommendations for Tourism Statistics 2008 (IRTS 2008), approved by the United Nations Statistical Commission at its 39th session (26-29 February 2008) and the Tourism Satellite Account: Recommended Methodological Framework 2008 (TSA: RMF 2008), which updates the 2000 version adopted by the UN Statistical Commission. \nThe IRTS 2008 provides the methodological framework (concepts, definitions and classifications) for basic tourism statistics, while the TSA: RMF 2008 provides the conceptual framework for linking tourism statistics to the System of National Accounts, enabling the economic measurement of tourism and the generation of aggregates such as Tourism Direct GDP.",,14.7,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  8.9,TRUE,8,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-8.pdf,46,"By 2030, devise and implement policies to promote sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products.",8.9.2,Proportion of jobs in sustainable tourism industries out of total tourism jobs,UNWTO,,"The ""tourism industries"", or tourism characteristic industries, comprise all establishments for which the principal activity is a tourism characteristic activity, i.e. the activities that typically produce tourism characteristic products (IRTS 2008 paras. 5.10-5.11). For international comparability purposes these are (according to ISIC Rev. 4 categories): accommodation for visitors (5510, 5520, 5590, 6810 and 6820), food and beverage serving activities (5610, 5629 and 5630), railway passenger transport (4911), road passenger transport (4922), water passenger transport (5011 and 5021), air passenger transport (5110), transport equipment rental (7710), travel agencies and other reservation service activities (7911, 7912 and 7990), cultural activities (9000, 9102, 9103), and sport and recreational activities (7721, 9200, 9311, 9319, 9321 and 9329). \nRegarding jobs, the agreement between an employee and the employer defines a job and each self-employed person has a job. The number of jobs in the economy thus exceeds the number of persons employed to the extent that some employees have more than one job (SNA 2008 para. 19.30 in IRTS 2008 Compilation Guide para. 7.6). Consequently, the number of jobs (demand side) and the number of persons employed (supply side) are dissimilar categories and therefore usually do not match. \nIn this respect, it should be noted that employment in the tourism industries refers to all the jobs (in all occupations) in both tourism-characteristic activities and non-tourism-characteristic activities in all establishments in tourism industries19. \nThe indicator shows the relative importance of jobs in the tourism industries as a share of the economy's total jobs.",( Jobs in tourism industries / Total jobs ) * 100,"Rationale \nTarget 8.9 has several dimensions but the essence of the target seems to be on promoting sustainable tourism [that ...]. It is recognized that the suggested indicator does not cater to all dimensions of the target, but finding one indicator that would do so seems unviable, certainly over the short-medium term. \nThere is the added challenge that the concept ""sustainable tourism"" is mainly a policy construct and not defined nor part of an established or internationally conceptual/statistical framework at this point. Even though UNWTO together with a number of countries, UNSD and OECD, and counting on the support of the UNCEEA are putting put in motion an initiative towards developing the measurement of the relationship between tourism and sustainability, notably through linking SEEA and TSA, it seems that the production of internationally comparable data on (something that could approximate for) ""sustainable tourism"" in a significant number of countries still has some years to go. \nFor the meantime, the suggested indicator (in its two parts, on tourism related GDP and jobs) seems to be a sensible approximation because (a) it is a good conceptual fit to some key dimensions of the target (b) it stems from a systems approach and is based on sound internationally agreed methodology, and (c) there is a significant number of countries already producing data for this indicator. In addition, the suggested indicator (tourism related GDP and jobs) is in line with Goal 8's general focus on economic growth and employment. \nFinally, the TDGDP/GDP part of this indicator can complement Target 14.7's indicator: ""Fisheries as a % of GDP"" in order to cater to tourism dimension of this target. \n\n Interpretation \n Target 8.9 has several dimensions; this caters to the dimension: tourism that creates jobs. It could also give an indication on how successful the ""promotion"" of tourism as job creator is being: promote [...] tourism that creates jobs.",,,,,,,"The indicator, or data series for populating this indicator, already exist and are regularly produced in a substantial number of countries. \nCurrently UNWTO compiles in its international dataset country yearly data on ""Jobs in tourism industries""(approx. 26 countries for reference year 2012). This is currently not compiled by gender. ILO compiles in its international dataset (ILOStats) data country data on ""total jobs"", by gender (approx.. 111 countries). Coverage could be increased over the medium term through joint UNWTO/ILO and capacity building in countries. \nWhile the indicator can already be produced for some 30 countries, time is required to develop or upgrade national statistical capacity of a considerable number of countries to produce the recommended indicators. It should, however be specially stressed that all these indicators are methodologically robust and based on existing internationally agreed definitions, classifications and practices. The methodology behind the indicators (data sources, methods of computation, treatment of missing values, regional estimates, etc.) is well documented and readily available. Moreover, these indictors can be collected from well-established sources.",,,"Depending on country, data could be available or produced that disaggregates by tourism industry, by gender, by status of employment. Currently UNWTO does not compile data on number of jobs in tourism industries disaggregated by gender (only full-time equivalent jobs) but this could be realized.",,"Given that a growing number of countries produce Tourism Satellite Account (TSA), data on (both parts of) the suggested indicators could become available in many more countries in the near future. \nThough inherent to much statistical production, the lag in production of data for Tourism Direct GDP by countries should be noted. The data demands (detailed input-output or supply and use tables) for setting up a TSA mean that it is often not possible to have current data nor frequent updating of the TSA. A solution some countries chose is to produce estimates of TSA aggregates, in between reference years, to have more current data and to produce a time series. \nTDGDP/GDP tends to not show large variations from one year to the next and variations may stem from the numerator and/or denominator. This could warrant considering the indicator in different forms: absolute value, % GDP and % change. \nThe suggested indicator (on tourism related GDP and jobs) as defined above can be supplemented with information on: \n\tNumber of full-time equivalent jobs (FTE jobs) in tourism industries. This is valuable because tourism tends to have a large share of part-time work and seasonality, elements related to sustainability. UNWTO compiles country data on FTE jobs in tourism industries, by gender and employed/self-employed, though coverage is still low. \n\tnumber of persons employed in tourism industries (growth rate, by gender, % total) \n\tTDGDP per employed person in tourism industries (growth rate), as the tourism equivalent of the suggested indicator for Target 8.2: 'Growth rate of GDP per employed person' \nThese indicators are methodologically robust and based on existing internationally agreed definitions, classifications and practices. The methodology behind the indicators (data sources, methods of computation, treatment of missing values, regional estimates, etc.) is well documented and readily available. \nMoreover, these indictors can be collected from well-established sources. The statistical capacity for data collection and analysis to support the indicator already partially exists in countries that conduct regular labour Force Surveys. But it is also true that in order to produce regular estimates of persons employed in the tourism industries, many countries would need launching pilot projects supported with necessary resources and test the indicators produced.",,,"The above suggested indicator (both parts, on GDP and jobs) is firmly based in the International Recommendations for Tourism Statistics 2008 (IRTS 2008), approved by the United Nations Statistical Commission at its 39th session (26-29 February 2008) and the Tourism Satellite Account: Recommended Methodological Framework 2008 (TSA: RMF 2008), which updates the 2000 version adopted by the UN Statistical Commission. \nThe IRTS 2008 provides the methodological framework (concepts, definitions and classifications) for basic tourism statistics, while the TSA: RMF 2008 provides the conceptual framework for linking tourism statistics to the System of National Accounts, enabling the economic measurement of tourism and the generation of aggregates such as Tourism Direct GDP.",,14.7,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  8.1,TRUE,8,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-8.pdf,50,"Strengthen the capacity of domestic financial institutions to encourage and expand access to banking, insurance and financial services for all.",8.10.1,"(a) Number of commercial bank branches per 100,000 adults and (b) number of automated teller machines (ATMs) per 100,000 adults",UNCDF,,"Number of ATMs per 100,000 adults \nCalculated as: (number of ATMs)*100,000/adult population in the reporting country. \nNumber of branches per 100,000 adults \nCalculated as follows: (number of institutions + number of branches)*100,000/adult population in the reporting country --- calculated separately for commercial banks, credit unions and financial cooperatives, and all MFIs.",,"People and businesses need access to financial services that are safe, reliable, and convenient. The high costs of providing these services, particularly to those living and working in more remote areas or for those whose transaction values are low, have led to limited access. New technologies and delivery channels are lowering costs and bringing timely and appropriate services to even more people, but require the institutions providing or partnering to provide services to have the capability to design and deliver these services.",,,,,,,"The IMF Financial Access Survey (FAS) is the most comprehensive global supply-side data on financial inclusion. The FAS database currently contains annual data for 184 jurisdictions, including all G20 economies, covering a nine-year period (2004-2012). To date, over 94,000 interviews in 126 countries have taken place. FAS collects data on access to and usage of financial services from central banks and other financial regulators around the world on an annual basis. The key FAS indicators help: \n\tIdentify knowledge gaps and set priorities for policies on broadening financial access; \n\tMonitor the effectiveness of these policies over time; \n\tAdvance research and analysis to strengthen understanding of the determinants and implications of financial access and usage.",,,,The IMF is responsible for annually collecting and compiling this indicator at the international level.,"In the event that there are future reviews to reduce the number of global SDG indicators, this target could relating to the capacity of financial institutions could be monitored by the percentage of population that have an account. Therefore, the following indirectly related indicator can be used to monitor Target 8.10: \n\tAdults owning an account either through a financial institution or mobile money provider, disaggregated by income level, geography location, gender, age and education (Global Findex)",,,,"International Monetary Fund. Financial Access Survey (FAS). Washington, DC. Internet site: \nhttp://fas.imf.org/Default.aspx \nhttp://fas.imf.org/misc/Explanatory_Notes.pdf",1.4,2.3,5.a,10.2,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  8.1,TRUE,8,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-8.pdf,51,"Strengthen the capacity of domestic financial institutions to encourage and expand access to banking, insurance and financial services for all.",8.10.2,Proportion of adults (15 years and older) with an account at a bank or other financial institution or with a mobile-money-service provider,UNCDF,,"Definition \nThis indicator denotes the percentage of respondents who report having an account (by themselves or together with someone else) at a bank or another type of financial institution; having a debit card in their own name; receiving wages, government transfers, or payments for agricultural products into an account or through a mobile phone at a financial institution in the past 12 months; paying utility bills or school fees from an account at a financial institution in the past 12 months; receiving wages or government transfers into a card in the past 12 months; or personally using a mobile phone to pay bills or to send or receive money through a GSM Association (GSMA) Mobile Money for the Unbanked (MMU) service in the past 12 months (% age 15+) \nConcepts \nAccount (% age 15+): The percentage of respondents who report having an account (by themselves or together with someone else) at a bank or another type of financial institution (see definition for ""account at a financial institution"") or personally using a mobile money service in the past 12 months (see definition for ""mobile money account"").",,"Access to formal financial services such as savings, insurance, payments, credit and remittances is essential to the ability of people'regardless of income level, gender, age, education or where they live'to manage their lives, build their futures, and grow their businesses. Having access to an account is an important starting point for people to access a range of financial services.",,,,,,,"The Global Findex is the only global demand-side data source allowing for global and regional cross-country analysis. The over 100 indicators in the 2014 Global Financial Inclusion (Global Findex) database are drawn from survey data covering almost 150,000 people in 143 economies'representing more than 97 percent of the world's population. The survey was launched in 2011 by the World Bank with financial support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The survey was again carried out in 2014 calendar year by Gallup, Inc. as part of its Gallup World Poll, which since 2005 has continually conducted surveys of approxi-mately 1,000 people in each of more than 160 economies and in over 140 languages, using randomly selected, nationally representative samples. The target population is the entire civilian, non-institutionalized population age 15 and above. The global survey will be conducted every three years.\n\n Data Collection: Interview Procedure \nSurveys are conducted face to face in economies where telephone coverage represents less than 80 percent of the population or is the customary methodology. In most economies the fieldwork is completed in two to four weeks. In economies where face-to-face surveys are conducted, the first stage of sampling is the identification of primary sampling units. These units are stratified by population size, geography, or both, and clustering is achieved through one or more stages of sampling. Where population information is available, sample selection is based on probabilities proportional to population size; otherwise, simple random sampling is used. Random route procedures are used to select sampled households. Unless an outright refusal occurs, interviewers make up to three attempts to survey the sampled household. To increase the probability of contact and completion, attempts are made at different times of the day and, where possible, on different days. If an interview cannot be obtained at the initial sampled household, a simple substitution method is used. Respondents are randomly selected within the selected households by means of the Kish grid. In economies where cultural restrictions dictate gender matching, respondents are randomly selected through the Kish grid from among all eligible adults of the interviewer's gender. \nIn economies where telephone interviewing is em-ployed, random digit dialing or a nationally representative list of phone numbers is used. In most economies where cell phone penetration is high, a dual sampling frame is used. Random selection of re-spondents is achieved by using either the latest birthday or Kish grid method. At least three attempts are made to reach a person in each house-hold, spread over different days and times of day.",,,"It is possible to disaggregate this indicator by country and region, as well as by income level, geography (rural/urban), gender, age and education level. Disaggregation is especially important (1) by income level to monitor progress on target 1.4 on poverty; (2) by geographic location to monitor progress on target 2.3 on agricultural productivity; (3) by gender to monitor progress on target 5.a on gender equality and women's empowerment; and (4) by all these dimensions to address issues of equality and inclusion of all in target 10.2.",The World Bank is responsible for compiling this indicator at the international level.,,The indicator can be disaggregated by gender.,,,"Asli Demirguc-Kunt, Leora Klapper, Dorothe Singer, and Peter Van Oudheusden, ""The Global Findex Database 2014: Measuring Financial Inclusion around the World"". Policy Research Working Paper 7255 \nData for all indicators can be found on the website. World Bank. Global Findex. Washington, DC. Internet site: http://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/globalfindex",1.4,2.3,5.a,10.2,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  8.a,TRUE,8,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-8.pdf,53,"Increase Aid for Trade support for developing countries, in particular least developed countries, including through the Enhanced Integrated Framework for Trade-Related Technical Assistance to Least Developed Countries.",8.a.1,Aid for Trade commitments and disbursements,OECD,,Total official development assistance (ODA) disbursements that qualify as aid for trade. Data expressed in US dollars at the average annual exchange rate.,,ODA is the accepted measure of international development co-operation. In this case it captures aid in support of projects and programmes to improve the trade and production capacities of developing countries.,,,,,,,Data are compiled by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development from returns submitted by its member countries and other aid providers. Data are available here.,,,"The data are generally obtained on an activity level, and include numerous parameters. They can thus be disaggregated by provider and recipient country; by type of finance, and by type of resources provided. Some data are also available on the policy objectives targeted by individual projects.","Data are available for essentially all high-income countries, and for an increasing number of middle-income aid providers.",The data only cover official concessional support from donor countries. The OECD and other organisations also collect data on broader investment flows to developing countries. However detailed sectoral information on such flows is lacking.,"The data include a ""gender equality"" marker which identifies individual projects that have a clear gender dimension.",,See Aid for trade,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  8.b,TRUE,8,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-8.pdf,54,"By 2020, develop and operationalize a global strategy for youth employment and implement the Global Jobs Pact of the International Labour Organization.",8.b.1,"Existence of a developed and operationalized national strategy for youth employment, as a distinct strategy or as part of a national employment strategy",ILO,,"This indicator represents the total public expenditure in social protection and employment programmes expressed as a percentage of the national budget and the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). It also includes the collective bargaining coverage rate, which is calculated as the percentage of employees whose pay and conditions of employment are determined by one or more collective agreements. A collective bargaining agreement refers to ""all agreements in writing regarding working conditions and terms of employment concluded between an employer, a group of employers or one or more employers' organizations, on the one hand, and one or more representative workers' organizations, on the other"" (ILO Collective Agreements Recommendation, 1951).",,"Total public expenditure in social protection and employment programmes synthesizes the overall public redistributive and employment promotion efforts. Calculating it as a percentage of the national budget and the GDP allows for the analysis of its relative place in the national economy as a whole. The collective bargaining coverage rate provides a measure of the reach of collective bargaining agreements and, as such, can help in assessing and monitoring the development of industrial relations.",,,,,,,"Household surveys (LFS, HIES, LSMS, Integrated HH surveys, etc.), Official estimates, Establishment surveys, Administrative records.",,,Data on collective bargaining coverage are available (for a more reduced number of countries) by sex and main economic activity.,The ILO does not currently produce global and regional estimates on the topics covered by this indicator.,"The percentage of the national budget or the GDP allocated to the expenditure in social protection and employment programmes is useful for comparative analysis at the national level and at the level of the components (social security scheme, types of employment programmes), but its interpretation presents inherent difficulties. These include understanding the composition of the national social security system and the configuration of employment programmes as well as changes to the framework over time. Other difficulties pertain to the interpretation of each national legal framework underlying national social protection systems and employment programmes. Regarding the collective bargaining coverage rate, given that its reference group is most commonly employees, the relative importance of self-employment in total employment should be kept in mind when interpreting it. This is of particular importance for developing countries, where employees represent a lower share of total employment.",,The ILO has data on the collective bargaining rates for 84 countries.,"For general information on social security statistics, refer to the Resolution concerning the development of social security statistics, available at: http://www.ilo.org/global/statistics-and-databases/standards-andguidelines/resolutions-adopted-by-international-conferences-of-labour-statisticians/WCMS_087550/lang-- en/index.htm \nStatistical information on social security can be found in the statistical knowledge base of the ILO Social Protection Department, available at: http://www.ilo.org/secsoc/areas-of-work/statistical-knowledge-base/lang-- en/index.htm \nFor further details on collective bargaining statistics, refer to the Resolution concerning statistics of collective agreements, available at: http://www.ilo.org/global/statistics-and-databases/standards-andguidelines/resolutions-adopted-by-international-conferences-of-labour-statisticians/WCMS_087547/lang-- en/index.htm \nFor further details of the collective bargaining rates in the context of European and developed countries using the Quality of Employment Framework, please refer to: Handbook on Measuring Quality of Employment: A Statistical Framework. (UNECE and CES): http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/stats/documents/ece/ces/2015/4_Add.2_Rev1_Guidelines_on_QoEmplo yment.pdf",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  9.1,FALSE,9,https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata?Text=&Goal=9&Target=,2,"Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure, including regional and trans-border infrastructure, to support economic development and human well-being, with a focus on affordable and equitable access for all.",9.1.1,Proportion of the rural population who live within 2 km of an all-season road,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  9.1,TRUE,9,https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata?Text=&Goal=9&Target=,2,"Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure, including regional and trans-border infrastructure, to support economic development and human well-being, with a focus on affordable and equitable access for all.",9.1.2,"Obujam putnika i robe, prema vrsti prijevoza",UPU,,"Average parcel shipping time/parcel shipping time standards, by country, both for domestic and international parcel services, and by product: this is the level of reliability of domestic or international parcel delivery services and for different products exchanged between countries. \nThis ratio is determined after dividing the average parcel shipping time by the standard shipping time expected for parcels delivery at the national or international level, and at the product level depending on data availability. \nAn alternative way of computing a similar quality of service ratio would be to use the percentage of parcels actually delivered within the quality standard, i.e. within the standard for shipping times. The standard for shipping time is the expected end-to-end transit time and is often expressed as the posting day + one, two , three, four or five days depending on the country geography and distance between countries.",,"With the strong development of national and international e-commerce, the quality of the postal and parcels delivery services is becoming a major concern for millions of enterprises and consumers transacting online. It is sometimes considered as a major hurdle by these market players and one of the challenges for trade facilitation, particularly for micro, small and medium-size enterprises interested in internationalizing their activities.",,,,,,,"The official data will start to be collected by the UPU in 2016 through the UPU Postal Statistics questionnaire. However, it is already possible to estimate the abovementioned shipping times through the UPU's international tracking systems for parcels and postal items enabling real-time analysis of billions of data records.",,,"The possibility of accessing tracking systems data enables the maximal disaggregation level from a geographic perspective, with detailed information available for any location involved in international postal and parcels exchanges within a country.",,"UPU tracking systems are currently limited to international postal and parcel transactions only. The official data to be collected in UPU's Postal Statistics questionnaires is covering domestic postal items up to two kilogrammes only. However, data collection on this issue could be expanded to items up to fifty kilogrammes in the coming three to five years.",The proportion of male or female recipients of postal items could be estimated by sampling postal traffic in each country.,,"Postal, parcel and express delivery networks are dealing with at least half a trillion economic transactions every year. Furthermore, post offices represent the largest physical retail network in the world with over 650,000 offices worldwide.",UNCTAD. (2015). Information Economy Report 2015. Unlocking the Potential of E-commerce for Developing Countries. UNCTAD. At: http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/ier2015_en.pdf \nUPU Postal Statistics website: http://www.upu.int/en/resources/postal-statistics/about-postal-statistics.html,2.3,11.2,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  9.2,TRUE,9,https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata?Text=&Goal=9&Target=,4,"Promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and, by 2030, significantly raise industry's share of employment and gross domestic product, in line with national circumstances, and double its share in least developed countries.",9.2.1,Dodana vrijednost prerađivačke industrije kao udio u BDP-u i po stanovniku,UNIDO,,Manufacturing value added (MVA) is the total value of goods and services net of intermediate consumption. It is generally compiled as the sum of the value added of all manufacturing activity units in operation in the reference period. It can be presented in percentage to gross domestic product (GDP) as well as per capita for any reference year. MVA growth rates are given at constant prices.,,"MVA is a well-recognized and widely used indicator by researchers and policy makers to assess the level of industrialization of a country. MVA measures the contribution of manufacturing to economy. The indicator is exceptionally good for international comparison. Share of MVA in GDP establishes the role of manufacturing in the economy. In other words, this indicator specifies the contribution of the manufacturing sector to total production. MVA per capita is the basic indicator of a country's level of industrialization adjusted for the size of the economy. And finally, the MVA growth provides insight into the general direction and magnitude of growth for the manufacturing sector. In practice, it is a measure of the rate of change that an economy's MVA goes through from one year to another at constant prices.",,,,,,,Currently UNIDO maintains the World MVA database which contains data for about 200 economies. Data are presented at constant and current prices.,,,"Data can be presented for country groups (LDCs, LLDC) and the world regions. Value added can also be presented by sector (ISIC).",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  9.2,TRUE,9,https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata?Text=&Goal=9&Target=,4,"Promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and, by 2030, significantly raise industry's share of employment and gross domestic product, in line with national circumstances, and double its share in least developed countries.",9.2.2,Zaposlenost u prerađivačkoj industriji kao udio u ukupnoj zaposlenosti,ILO,UNIDO,"From ILO: \n This indicator is computed as the number of persons employed in the industry sector divided by total employment. Employed persons are defined as all those of working age who, during a short reference period, were engaged in any activity to produce goods or provide services for pay or profit. The industry sector comprises mining and quarrying, manufacturing, construction and public utilities (electricity, gas and water). \n\n From UNIDO: \n Employment is defined as a work performed for pay or profit. The value is obtained by summing up the number of employed in all manufacturing activities. The manufacturing employment indicator is presented in absolute terms as well as relative to total employment.",,"From ILO: \n The industry sector, which is largely composed of manufacturing, is central to the economy given its significant contribution to national product and employment. It impacts also other aspects of life such as health and the environment. The industry sector being a major source of job creation (directly and indirectly), the study of trends and patterns of the share and growth of employment in industry can reveal valuable information on the labour market configuration and the situation in terms of social cohesion. \n\n From UNIDO: \n This indicator represents the contribution of manufacturing in job creation. It is universally important indicator. For industrialized countries it represents sustained growth, for developing countries it shows the ability of manufacturing to absorb surplus labour from traditional sectors. Compared to the indicator 9.2.1 it measures the labour productivity ' another key indicator for measuring technological progress.",,,,,,,"From ILO: \n Household surveys (LFS, HIES, LSMS, Integrated HH surveys, etc.), Official estimates, Establishment surveys. \n\n From UNIDO: \n Manufacturing employment data are widely available from the industrial survey results. UNIDO's INDSTAT database contains employment data for 170 countries. Total employment data (for calculation of percentage) are available in ILO database.",,,From ILO: \n Data are available by gender or by occupation. \n\n From UNIDO: \n Data can be presented for country groups and the world regions. Gender disaggregated data are available.,"The ILO produces global and (flexible) regional estimates of employment by industry, disaggregated by sex, including disaggregated data on manufacturing.","There are a variety of issues affecting cross-country comparability, including but not limited to differences in the definition of working-age, different sources, measurement differences, conceptual variation, survey coverage and collection methodology.","As this indicator is disaggregated by sex, it is well-suited for analysis of gender equality issues.",The ILO has data on the share of employment in industry for 175 countries. The coverage for annual growth rates which would require consecutive annual data points is more limited.,"For details, refer to the Resolution concerning statistics of work, employment and labour underutilization, available at: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/--- stat/documents/normativeinstrument/wcms_230304.pdf",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  9.3,TRUE,9,https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata?Text=&Goal=9&Target=,6,"Increase the access of small-scale industrial and other enterprises, in particular in developing countries, to financial services, including affordable credit, and their integration into value chains and markets.",9.3.1,Udio malih poduzeća u ukupnoj dodanoj vrijednosti djelatnosti industrije,UNIDO,,Value added is the total value of goods and services produced by an industry in the given reference period. The indicator is computed as the total value added of small scale industries (as defined in the survey) divided by the total value added of industries of all sizes and multiplied by 100.,,Small scale industry plays an important in the economy of all countries which can be established with the small amount of investment. Such industries are based on processing local raw materials. It generates employment and self-employment. Their share in total value added best describes the size and structure of small industry. This indicator is also well-correlated with other indicators such as the income and employment generated by small scale industry.,,,,,,,Data are obtained from the household and establishment-based surveys. Limited data are available in UNIDO database.,,,Data can be disaggregated by industry and by regions.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  9.3,TRUE,9,https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata?Text=&Goal=9&Target=,6,"Increase the access of small-scale industrial and other enterprises, in particular in developing countries, to financial services, including affordable credit, and their integration into value chains and markets.",9.3.2,Proportion of small-scale industries with a loan or line of credit,UNIDO,,Number of small industries receiving financial services is presented in percentage of the total number of small industries.,,"Small scale industries have limited access to financial services, whereas their need to loan is acute. This indicator shows how widely financial institutions are serving the small industries. This indicators together with suggested indicator 1 reflects the main message of target 9, 3 which intends to balance the contribution of small industry to their access to financial services.",,,,,,,Data are not readily available with international sources. Limited data can be derived from the World Bank enterprise survey but there is no data available in regular time series. \nNSOs can compile the indicator from the survey data and records of the financial institutions.,,,Data can be presented by region,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  9.4,TRUE,9,https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata?Text=&Goal=9&Target=,8,"By 2030, upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them sustainable, with increased resource-use efficiency and greater adoption of clean and environmentally sound technologies and industrial processes, with all countries taking action in accordance with their respective capabilities.",9.4.1,Emisija CO2 po jedinici dodane vrijednosti,UNIDO,,CO2 emission per unit of value added is a ratio indicator between the carbon emission and value added. Carbon emission is estimated from the data on energy consumption.,,"Carbon emission per unit of value added is a universal indicator for measuring the impact of industrial production on environment. It captures the intensity of energy use, energy efficiency of production technology and most importantly use of fossil fuels. This indicator can also be presented as CO2 emission per unit of output.",,,,,,,Energy consumption and value added data are available for more than 150 countries from UNIDO MVA database and UNSD energy database as well as International Energy Agency (IEA) database. Emission data are directly reported by NSOs in many cases.,,,"Data can be presented by country, country groups and by industrial sector",,Estimates of emission are missing sometime due to the lack of breakdown by energy sources.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  9.5,TRUE,9,https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata?Text=&Goal=9&Target=,9,"Enhance scientific research, upgrade the technological capabilities of industrial sectors in all countries, in particular developing countries, including, by 2030, encouraging innovation and substantially increasing the number of research and development workers per 1 million people and public and private research and development spending.",9.5.1,Izdaci za istraživanje i razvoj kao udio u BDP-u,UNESCO,,"The OECD Frascati Manual provides the relevant definitions for research and experimental development, gross domestic expenditure on R&D and researchers. \nResearch and experimental development (R&D) comprise creative work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of man, culture and society, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications. (FM '63) \nIntramural expenditures are all expenditures for R&D performed within a statistical unit or sector of the economy during a specific period, whatever the source of funds. (FM '358) \nResearchers are professionals engaged in the conception or creation of new knowledge, products, processes, methods and systems and also in the management of the projects concerned. (FM '301) \nAlthough an OECD manual, the application is global. The Frascati Manual is currently under revision, with the next edition to be released in October 2015. The new edition of the Manual will be a truly global manual. There will be some changes to the definitions provided above, but these are not substantial.",,The indicator is a direct measure of R&D spending referred to in the target.,,,,,,,"Data are collected through national R&D surveys, either by the national statistical office or a line ministry (such as the Ministry for Science and Technology)",,,"R&D expenditure can be broken down by sector of performance, source of funds, field of science, type of research and type of cost. \nResearchers can be broken down by sector of employment, field of science, sex and age, all in head counts and full-time equivalent.","OECD and Eurostat collect data from their member countries. The UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) imports these data into its global database, and collects the data directly from all other countries in the world, in partnership with RICYT in Latin America and NEPAD in Africa.",,"Researcher data can be broken down by sex, allowing to track gender parity.",Data are currently available for 137 countries.,,Frascati Manual: www.oecd.org/sti/frascatimanual and http://www.uis.unesco.org/Library/Documents/OECDFrascatiManual02_en.pdf \nUIS Data centre: http://data.uis.unesco.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SCN_DS&popupcustomise=true&lang=en,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  9.5,FALSE,9,https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata?Text=&Goal=9&Target=,9,"Enhance scientific research, upgrade the technological capabilities of industrial sectors in all countries, in particular developing countries, including, by 2030, encouraging innovation and substantially increasing the number of research and development workers per 1 million people and public and private research and development spending.",9.5.2,Istraživači izraženi ekvivalentom pune zaposlenosti na milijun stanovnika,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  9.a,TRUE,9,https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata?Text=&Goal=9&Target=,10,"Facilitate sustainable and resilient infrastructure development in developing countries through enhanced financial, technological and technical support to African countries, least developed countries, landlocked developing countries and Small Island developing States.",9.a.1,Total official international support (official development assistance plus other official flows) to infrastructure,OECD,,Total net official development assistance (ODA,http://www.oecd.org/dac/dac-glossary.htm#ODA) to economic infrastructure (purpose code 200,http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/purposecodessectorclassification.htm). Data expressed in US dollars at the average annual exchange rate.,,"ODA is the accepted measure of international development co-operation. In this case it captures aid in support of projects and programmes to improve the economic infrastructure of developing countries, which is taken to include the sectors of transport and storage, communications and energy, as well as banking, business and other services.",,,,,,,"Data are compiled by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development from returns submitted by its member countries and other aid providers. Data are available here, http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/data.htm.",,,"The data are generally obtained on an activity level, and include numerous parameters. They can thus be disaggregated by provider and recipient country; by type of finance, and by type of resources provided. Some data are also available on the policy objectives targeted by individual projects.","Data are available for essentially all high-income countries, and for an increasing number of middle-income aid providers.",The data only cover official concessional support from donor countries.,"The data include a ""gender equality"" marker (http://www.oecd.org/investment/stats/37461060.pdf) which identifies individual projects that have a clear gender dimension.",,"See http://www.oecd.org/dac/aft/43860714.pdf, for detailed sectoral coverage.","OECD, 2014 Official Support for Private Sector Participation in Developing Country Infrastructure (http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/development/official-support-for-private-sector-participation-in-developing-country-infrastructure_5jz14cd40nf0-en?crawler=true).",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  9.b,TRUE,9,https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata?Text=&Goal=9&Target=,12,"Support domestic technology development, research and innovation in developing countries, including by ensuring a conducive policy environment for, inter alia, industrial diversification and value addition to commodities.",9.b.1,Proportion of medium and high-tech industry value added in total value added,UNIDO,,Classification of industry by technological intensity is based in R&D intake in manufacturing output. Higher the share of R&D expenditure higher the level of technological intensity. MHT sectors are classified at 3-digit level of ISIC. Above indicator is calculated as the relation of the sum of the value added of MHT to the total value added of manufacturing.,,"This indicator captures the innovation and technology endowment in manufacturing. It reveals the level of production technology in manufacturing of an economy, which makes it highly policy relevant indicator.",,,,,,,Data are available from the annual industrial survey.,,,Data can be presented separately for each MHT sector as well as by region and country group.,,,,INDSTAT database of UNIDO contains time series data for more than 170 countries.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  9.c,TRUE,9,https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata?Text=&Goal=9&Target=,13,Significantly increase access to information and communications technology and strive to provide universal and affordable access to the Internet in least developed countries by 2020.,9.c.1,"Proportion of population covered by a mobile network, by technology",ITU,Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development,"The indicator percentage of the population covered by a mobile network, broken down by technology, refers to the percentage of inhabitants living within range of a mobile-cellular signal, irrespective of whether or not they are mobile phone subscribers or users. This is calculated by dividing the number of inhabitants within range of a mobile-cellular signal by the total population and multiplying by 100. \nThe indicator is based on where the population lives, and not where they work or go to school, etc. When there are multiple operators offering the service, the maximum population number covered should be reported. Coverage should refer to broadband (3G and more) and narrowband (2G) mobile-cellular technologies and include: \n\t2G mobile population coverage: Mobile networks with access to data communications (e.g. Internet) at downstream speeds below 256 kbit/s. This includes mobile-cellular technologies such as GPRS, CDMA2000 1x and most EDGE implementations. The indicator refers to the theoretical ability of subscribers to use non-broadband speed mobile data services, rather than the number of active users of such services. \n\t3G and above mobile-population coverage: Refers to the number of mobile-cellular subscriptions with access to data communications (e.g. the Internet) at broadband downstream speeds (defined here as greater than or equal to 256 kbit/s). The indicator refers to the theoretical ability of subscribers to use broadband speed mobile data services, rather than the number of active users of such services. This includes all high-speed mobile-cellular telephone subscriptions with access to data communications, and includes mobile-cellular technologies such as WCDMA (UMTS) and associated technologies such as HSPA, CDMA2000 1x EV-DO, mobile WiMAX 802.16e and LTE. It excludes low-speed mobilebroadband subscriptions and fixed (wired) Internet subscriptions. \nAs technologies evolve and as more and more countries will deploy and commercialize more advanced mobilebroadband networks (4G, 5G etc.), the indicator will include further breakdowns. \nITU collects data for this indicator through an annual questionnaire from national telecommunication regulatory authorities or Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Ministries, who collect the data from licensed mobile-cellular operators. However, they are likely to have different levels and locations of coverage. Another method would be to request each operator's coverage maps, which can be overlaid with maps showing the population of the country.",,"The percentage of the population covered by a mobile cellular network can be considered as a minimum indicator for ICT access since it provides people with the possibility to subscribe to and use mobile-cellular services to communicate. Over the last decade, mobile-cellular networks have expanded rapidly and helped overcome very basic infrastructure barriers that existed when fixed-telephone networks ' often limited to urban and highly populated areas - were the dominant telecommunication infrastructure. \nWhile 2G (narrowband) mobile-cellular networks offer limited (and mainly voice-based) services, higher-speed networks provide increasingly high-speed, reliable and high-quality access to the Internet and its increasing amount of information, content, services, and applications. Mobile networks are therefore essential to overcoming infrastructure barriers, helping people join the information society and benefit from the potential of ICTs, in particular in least developed countries. \nThe indicator highlights the importance of mobile networks in providing basic, as well as advanced communication services and will help design targeted policies to overcome remaining infrastructure barriers, and address the digital divide. Many governments track this indicator and have set specific targets in terms of the mobile population coverage (by technology) that operators must achieve.",,,,,,,"This indicator is based on an internationally agreed definition and methodology, which have been developed under the coordination of ITU, through its Expert Groups and following an extensive consultation process with countries. It is also a core indicator of the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development's Core List of Indicators, which has been endorsed by the UN Statistical Commission (last time in 2014). \nITU collects data for this indicator through an annual questionnaire from national regulatory authorities or Information and Communication Technology Ministries, who collect the data from Internet service providers. By 2014, data on 2G mobile population coverage were available for about 144 countries, from developed and developing regions, and covering all key global regions. Data on 3G mobile population coverage were available for 135 countries. ITU publishes data on this indicator yearly.",,,"Based on the data for the percentage of the population covered by a mobile network, broken down by technology, and on rural population figures, countries can produce estimates on rural and urban population coverage. ITU produces global estimates for the rural population coverage, by technology.","ITU produces regional and global aggregates for the 'percentage of the population covered by a mobile network, broken down by technology. \nYear-end data are released in December of the following year through the ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Database.","Some countries have difficulty calculating overall mobile-cellular population coverage. In some cases, data refer only to the operator with the largest coverage, and this may understate the true coverage.",,,,"ITU Handbook (http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/publications/handbook.aspx) for the collection of Administrative Data on Telecommunications/ICT, 2011 (and revisions and new indicators)",1.4,2.3,2.c,9.1,11.b,13.1,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  10.1,TRUE,10,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-10.pdf,2,"By 2030, progressively achieve and sustain income growth of the bottom 40 per cent of the population at a rate higher than the national average.",10.1.1,Stope rasta izdataka ili dohotka kućanstva po članu kućanstva, za 40% populacije s najnižim izdacima ili dohotkom i za ukupnu populaciju,OHCHR,,"Real disposable household income is the sum of wages and salaries, mixed income, net property income, net current transfers and social benefits other than social transfers in kind, less taxes on income and wealth and social security contributions, after adjustment for price changes.",,,,,,,,,The main data source is household surveys.,,,"This indicator should be disaggregated by ethnicity, sex, age, geographic location, disability, religion, migratory or displacement status, civil status, and other statuses relevant at the national level, which may for example include minority or indigenous status, language spoken at home, etc.","The World Bank collects some relevant data at global level, although this indicator is not currently computed.","In many national contexts, household surveys, which are the main data source for this indicator, exclude the homeless or low-income groups without access to telephones. Face-to-face surveys often exclude non-urban populations or members of linguistic minorities.","In many instances, household surveys are conducted only with the 'head' of the household, who answers for other persons living at the same address. As this is most often the oldest male resident, the indicator may not fully capture the experience of women or give a picture of women's control over their income and resources. Where it is not feasible for this reason to disaggregate by sex, the indicator should be disaggregated for female-headed households.",,,World Bank data: http://data.worldbank.org/,1.2,10.2,10.3,10.4,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  10.2,TRUE,10,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-10.pdf,3,"By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.",10.2.1,"Postotak osoba koje žive ispod 50% medijana dohotka, prema spolu, dobi i za osobe s invaliditetom",OHCHR,,"The indicator is calculated as the proportion of persons living in households (adjusted for household size) below 60% of the national median income, using population-weighted subgroup estimates from household surveys.",,"This indicator is a measure of relative income poverty at the national level. It measures how far individuals are from the median standard of living, approximating a measure of social exclusion. Persons living in relative poverty often experience many other forms of social and economic disadvantage through unemployment, poor housing, inadequate health care and barriers in accessing education and economic, social, political and cultural activities, which can result from social stigmatisation.",,,,,,,The main data source is household surveys.,,,"This indicator should be disaggregated by ethnicity, sex, age, geographic location, disability, religion, migratory or displacement status, civil status, and other statuses relevant at the national level, which may for example include minority or indigenous status, language spoken at home, etc.","At the international and regional levels, OECD and the EU both collect these data for their Member States. The World Bank currently compiles data on percentage of people below national (i.e. country'specific) poverty lines, but this could be amended or supplemented to include this comparable indicator.","In many national contexts, household surveys, which are the main data source for this indicator, exclude the homeless or low-income groups without access to telephones. Face-to-face surveys often exclude non-urban populations or members of linguistic minorities. Because it focuses on income only, this indicator does not measure other forms of poverty, and should therefore be supplemented with other indicators on access to adequate housing, social services, health care, as well as the assets or expenses of the household (e.g. home owners will have more disposable income than renters with the same household income).","In many instances, household surveys are conducted only with the 'head' of the household, who answers for other persons living at the same address. As this is most often the oldest male resident, the indicator may not fully capture the experience of women or give a picture of women's control over their income and resources. Where it is not feasible for this reason to disaggregate by sex, the indicator should be disaggregated for female-headed households.",,,,1.2,1.3,5.1,10.1,10.3,10.4,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  10.3,TRUE,10,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-10.pdf,4,"Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard.",10.3.1,Udio stanovništva koji je izjavio kako se osobno osjećao diskriminiranim ili uznemiravanim u proteklih 12 mjeseci na temelju razloga diskriminacije zabranjenih prema međunarodnoj pravnoj osnovi o ljudskim pravima,OHCHR,TST,"International human rights law outlaws discrimination against population groups on the basis of specific characteristics or 'grounds'. The grounds of discrimination prohibited under international human rights law, as enshrined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and subsequently elaborated upon by international human rights mechanisms, include ethnicity, sex, age, income, geographic location, disability, religion, migratory or displacement status, civil status, sexual orientation and gender identity. While some grounds are common to all countries and follow standard definitions, such as sex, age or disability, the precise categories to be included under grounds such as ethnicity, geographic location and religion will vary according to national circumstances and should be determined in a participatory process at national level. \nThe indicator is calculated as the percentage of persons reporting having personally felt discriminated against or harassed within the last 12 months on the basis of a ground of discrimination prohibited under international human rights law. This will be calculated using the full survey results, with techniques of imputation, estimation and data weighting to ensure a representative sample and data reliability.",,"This outcome indicator provides a measure of how well non-discriminatory laws and policies are applied in practice, from the perspective of the population. It is based on personal experience rather than perception to ensure greater validity of data, as perceptions of the experience of others may themselves be affected by stereotyping.",,,,,,,The primary data source is surveys conducted at the national or regional level.,,,"Data for this indicator should be disaggregated by ground of discrimination, relationship with the person or entity felt to have discriminated (employer/employee, public official or employee, private enterprise, teacher/student, etc.), and place where the discrimination occurred (work, street, home, school, etc.).","Data for this indicator are collected in an increasing number of countries. At the regional level, the EU Fundamental Rights Agency has collected the data for 27 EU Member States. Relevant data is also collected in Eurobarometer and Afrobarometer surveys, and this question could easily be added.","Because the indicator measures the percentage of the population reporting discrimination during the time period, each victim is counted only once, irrespective of the number of times discrimination or harassment was experienced. Without this information, the indicator does not therefore permit estimates of incidence of discrimination. \nIn many national contexts, surveys may exclude the homeless or low-income groups without access to telephones. Face-to-face surveys often exclude non-urban populations or members of linguistic minorities. There is evidence to suggest that the most marginalised populations are less likely to respond to surveys, but this effect is reduced by ensuring their participation in the preparation of the survey.","Data for the indicator should be disaggregated by sex, sexual orientation and gender identity. Multiple grounds of discrimination (e.g. women members of an ethnic minority who have suffered discrimination based on both sex and ethnicity) should be noted.",,,FRA survey data and methodology:\nhttp://fra.europa.eu/en/survey/2012/eu-midis-european-union-minorities-and-discrimination-survey,10.2,16.3,16.b,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  10.4,TRUE,10,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-10.pdf,6,"Adopt policies, especially fiscal, wage and social protection policies, and progressively achieve greater equality.",10.4.1,"Labour share of GDP, comprising wages and social protection transfers",ILO,,The definition of the labor share is based on ILO (2014a) and augmented with social protection transfers including (but not only) employers' social security contributions.,,"The current indicator mistakenly overlooks the internationally agreed definition of social protection, mainly based on cash transfers (eg pensions, disability, child and maternity benefits, etc). . Furthermore, coverage of social protection floor is already captured in indicator 1.3. In contrast, the alternative indicator addresses income distribution directly. \nThe rationale is to monitor progress toward Target 10.4 encompassing all three policies (fiscal, wage, social protection) and their impact on inequality. \nThe indicator provides and an aggregate measure of primary income inequality, offering insights the role that social protection can have in reducing it.",,,,,,,,,,"National estimates: total. \nGlobal estimates: total, by region, national income level.","Data for global and regional monitoring are extracted from administrative data. They are available in ILO (2014a) and IMF (2014) databases and in the System of National Accounts, for 200 countries.",,The indicator is aggregate and not available by sex.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  10.5,FALSE,10,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-10.pdf,7,Improve the regulation and monitoring of global financial markets and institutions and strengthen the implementation of such regulations.,10.5.1,Financial Soundness Indicators,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  10.6,TRUE,10,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-10.pdf,8,"Ensure enhanced representation and voice for developing countries in decision-making in global international economic and financial institutions in order to deliver more effective, credible, accountable and legitimate institutions.",10.6.1,Proportion of members and voting rights of developing countries in international organizations,OHCHR,,"The indicator is computed as the number of voting rights allocated to developing countries, divided by the total number of voting rights in international organizations, multiplied by 100.",,"The UN is based on a principle of sovereign equality of all its Member States (Article 2, UN Charter). Voting rights in international organizations, particularly those under the auspices of the UN system, should respect this principle. This indicator aims to measure the degree to which States enjoy equal representation in international organizations.",,,,,,,"The data for this indicator are publicly available in the founding documents of each international organization, as updated.",,,"Data should be calculated and presented separately for each organization (World Bank, IMF, etc.).",,"To be meaningful, the indicator must be compared to the relevant percentage of UN Member States, i.e. the voting rights in the General Assembly. This is a structural indicator. Such indicators do not in general track gradual change or progress, but they are useful to demonstrate a state of affairs or policy commitments.",,,,,16.3,16.8,17.1,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  10.7,TRUE,10,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-10.pdf,9,"Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies.",10.7.1,Recruitment cost borne by employee as a proportion of yearly income earned in country of destination,Global Migration Working Group, National Statistical Offices,,"Recruitment cost borne by agricultural workers, domestic workers and construction workers divided by yearly income earned in country of destination","Migrant workers often pay recruitment agencies sums amounting to several months' expected wage. This contravenes the ILO Private Employment Agencies Convention commitment to abolish such fees. These fees disproportionately affect low-skilled, lowincome workers from low-income countries. By reducing recruitment costs the disposable incomes of low-income workers are increased and inequalities are reduced by enabling people who could otherwise not afford to seek employment abroad to do so without ending up in debt bondage.",,,"10.7 facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies",,,,"Progress is measured as reduction in comparison to baseline, currently under development by KNOMAD (ILO and the World Bank). Data would be collected through annual cost surveys based on household surveys, labour force surveys, or ad hoc surveys.",,,,,"Much could be covered by introducing new questions into existing surveys, but in some instances new surveys might be needed.",,,,,8.8,,,,,,,, Ministries of Labour,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  10.7,TRUE,10,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-10.pdf,9,"Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies.",10.7.2,Number of countries that have implemented well-managed migration policies,Global Migration Working Group,TST,,"The International Migration Policy Index would track development and identify gaps through aggregation of reporting on migration policies relevant for the SDG framework. The aggregation of constituent items of ""well-managed migration policies"" will be based on existing regional and thematic migration policy indexes and state of the art methodology on conceptualizing and measuring migration policies (Bjerre et. al 2015). Current work points toward the index tracking status regarding the following migration policy strands: \n\tPromoting and protecting the human rights of migrants \n\tSupporting socio-economic outcome \n\tSupporting regulated mobility \n\tMobility dimensions of crisis \n\tPartnerships and cooperation \nComputation would be based on a three-tier-scale, e.g. 100 = comprehensive; 50 = elaborated; 0 = basic level of implementation; or 100 = 100%-90%; 50 = 89%-40%; 0 = 39% and below for proportion of coverage etc.","With target 10.7 the OWG has acknowledged the significance of well-managed migration policies for the quality of migration (""orderly, safe, regular and responsible:"") which in turn determines development outcomes of migration. This would ensure that migrants are not left behind. Bearing in mind that ""well-managed migration policies:"" is a multi-dimensional issue, spanning issues like migrant remittances, circular migration, responses to climate change and crises; a composite index would be the only way to capture progress and to make actionable gap analyses. The monitoring of the commitment to ""well-managed migration policies:"" through a composite index would enable to bring together the already existing broad range of sources on migration policy such as follow-up mechanisms of international conventions and protocols related to international migration as well as elements captured in the outcome documents from the deliberations in the 2nd and 3rd Committees of the General Assembly, the High-level Dialogues on International Migration and Development, the Commission on Population and Development, the Human Rights Council, the Global Forum on Migration and Development and IOM Council.",,,"10.7 facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies",,,,"Government agencies, including reporting to follow-up mechanisms of relevant human rights instruments. \nThe United Nations Inquiry among Governments on Population and Development (http://esa.un.org/PopPolicy/Inquiry.aspx), collected every 5 years since 1963, and the associated World Population Policies Database (http://esa.un.org/PopPolicy/about_database.aspx) and World Population Report (http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/policy/world-population-policies-2013.shtml), which has data on migration policy dating back to 1976, which currently puts out data covering 196 countries on a biannual basis. \n83 countries covered by either thematic or regional migration policy indexes (cf. Bjerre supra) \n171 countries' migration policies covered by Migration Profiles (http://www.gfmd.org/pfp/policy-tools/migration-profiles).",,,,,"There exist already 13 migration policy indexes that either are limited to certain themes of migration policy (e.g. integration or 'migrant accessibility') or cover certain regions (e.g. OECD countries). The International Migration Policy Index will be the first global index intended to cover all major aspects of migration policy output. Efforts are currently under way, and broad consultations with stakeholders will be held, including through the Global Forum on Migration and Development as well as the IOM Council. The index will not present a ranking of countries, as this would not serve any purpose in the post-2015 context but rather to group countries in a manner that would serve to illustrate to HLPF progress on migration policies and gap-analysis.",,,,,5.2,8.8,10.7,16.1,16.2,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  10.a,FALSE,10,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-10.pdf,12,"Implement the principle of special and differential treatment for developing countries, in particular least developed countries, in accordance with World Trade Organization agreements.",10.a.1,Proportion of tariff lines applied to imports from least developed countries and developing countries with zero-tariff,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  10.b,FALSE,10,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-10.pdf,13,"Encourage official development assistance and financial flows, including foreign direct investment, to States where the need is greatest, in particular least developed countries, African countries, Small Island developing States and landlocked developing countries, in accordance with their national plans and programmes.",10.b.1,"Total resources flows for development, by recipient and donor countries and type of flow (e.g. official development assistance, foreign direct investment and other flows)",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  10.c,TRUE,10,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-10.pdf,14,"By 2030, reduce to less than 3 per cent the transaction costs of migrant remittances and eliminate remittance corridors with costs higher than 5 per cent.",10.c.1,Remittance costs as a proportion of the amount remitted,Global Migration Working Group,TST,,"Fees paid, including indirect costs for inflated exchange rates, divided by the amount remitted.","Remittances are an important private source of income for migrant families. They benefit wider communities and improve the human development of migrant households. With total remittances going to developing countries projected at USD 454 billion in 2015, reaching the target of reducing remittances to less than 3% would save more than USD 20 billion/year. The G20 has already committed to reducing the transfer costs of remittances (with 5 percentage points over five years), the so'called '5x 5 initiative'. To monitor this commitment, a designated group in the World bank was created to monitor the implementation of this commitment.",,,"10.c by 2030, reduce to less than 3% the transaction costs of migrant remittances and eliminate remittance corridors with costs higher than 5%.",,,,"Data already collected through quarterly surveys in 226 migration corridors. Information is compiled in existing remittance price database: http://remittanceprices.worldbank.org/en, (survey based, mystery shopping).",,,,,The ratings this indicator received from UN Statistics Division survey among national statistics offices (CBB) is misguiding as it does not take into account the existing data collection (quarterly surveys) carried by the World Bank in a large number of number of migration corridors. Suggested rating: AAA,,,,,10.7,17.3,,,,,,, The World Bank,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  11.1,TRUE,11,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-11.pdf,2,"By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services and upgrade slums.",11.1.1,"Proportion of urban population living in slums, informal settlements, or inadequate housing",UN-HABITAT,,Proportion of people living in households lacking at least one of the following five housing conditions: access to improved water, access to improved sanitation facilities, sufficient-living area (not overcrowded), durable housing, and security of tenure.,"Proportion of households, which lack one or more of the following: Durable housing, sufficient living space, easy access to safe water, access to adequate sanitation, and security of tenure, United Nations (2007) proposes the following definitions. \nAccess to improved water: A household is considered to have access to improved drinking water if it has sufficient amount of water for family use. A sufficient amount is the availability of at least 20 litters/person/day. The following criteria are used to determine the access to improved water: \n\tPiped connection to house or plot \n\tBore hole \n\tPublic stand pipe serving no more than 5 households \n\tProtected dug well \n\tProtected spring \n\tRain water collection \n\tBottle water (new) \nAccess to improved sanitation: A household is considered to have access to improved sanitation according to the following criteria: \n\tDirect connection to public sewer \n\tDirect connection to septic tank \n\tPoor flush latrine \n\tVentilated improved pit latrine \n\tPit latrine with slab (new) \nSufficient-living area, not overcrowded: A dwelling unit is considered to provide a sufficient living area for the household members if there are fewer than four people per habitable room. Additional indicators of overcrowding have been proposed: area-level indicators such as average in-house living area per person or the number of households per area; housing-unit level indicators such as the number of persons per bed or the number of children under five per room may also be viable. \nStructural quality/durability of dwellings: A house is considered as 'durable' if it is built on a non-hazardous location and has a structure permanent and adequate enough to protect its inhabitants from the extremes of climatic conditions. The following criteria are used to determine the structural quality/durability of dwellings: \n\tPermanency of Structure \n\tPermanent building material for the walls, roof and floor \n\tCompliance of building codes \n\tThe dwelling is not in a dilapidated state \n\tThe dwelling is not in need of major repair \n\tThe dwelling is not located on a steep slope \n\tThe dwelling is not located on or near toxic waste \n\tLocation of house (hazardous) \n\tThe dwelling is not located in a flood plain \n\tThe dwelling is not located in a dangerous right of way (rail, highway, airport, power lines). \nSecurity of tenure: Secure Tenure is the right of all individuals and groups to effective protection by the State against arbitrary unlawful evictions. Secure tenure can be made evident through formal or informal mechanisms in codified law and in customary law. The following criteria are used to determine security of tenure: \n\tEvidence of documentation that can be used as proof of secure tenure status \n\tEither de facto or perceived / protection from forced evictions \nFormally, \n Slum Households = ( Number of people living in slum / City Population ) * 100 \nBenchmark \nMin = 0. Max = 100. \nStandardization \nSlum Households(s) = 100 - Slum Households","Spatial inequalities are generally expressed as segregation of certain population groups, which resemble poverty as well as inadequate life conditions. Moreover, rapid urbanization, if not well managed, will lead to more informal settlements and poverty. Therefore, in order to sharpen policies it is necessary to identify and quantify the slums of a city. A prosperous and inclusive city is able to reduce spatial inequalities.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"United Nations (2007). Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies. Third Edition, United Nations, New York.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  11.2,TRUE,11,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-11.pdf,4,"By 2030, provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all, improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport, with special attention to the needs of those in vulnerable situations, women, children, persons with disabilities and older persons.",11.2.1,"Proportion of population that has convenient access to public transport, by sex, age and persons with disabilities",UN-HABITAT,,"\n\tThe indicator is suitable, particularly in the countries/cities where the information exists. The Target is too broad intending to measure multiple aspects of urban mobility. The indicator covers three critical aspects of this target: accessible in distance, energy-efficient and the expansion of public transport. \n\tUN-Habitat position, in line with all the organizations supporting this indicator, is that necessary adjustments are required to minimize its complexity and make it more suitable for global monitoring. \n\tThe indicator can be measured by a proxy, which is the proportion of the population that has a public transit stop within 0.5 km. This reduces the complexity of the 20 minutes (which is very variable in different hours of the day or days of the week). \n\tIn case there is no spatial information on the population location and density, the indicator can measure the proportion of the surface that has a public transit stop. \n\tAs cities/countries evolve in their data collection systems, the indicator could be harmonized to include the elements indicated by the EC (street network and frequency of the transport).",,"\n\tAlthough it is an indicator not easy to collect in all cities/countries in the world, it proposes an innovative mechanism of data collection and analysis. \n\tAs the Outcome Document 2nd Meeting of the Urban SDGs Campaign in Bangalore (12-14 February 2015) recognizes: \n\t\tNo internationally agreed methodology exists for measuring convenience and service quality of public transport. In addition, global/local on urban transport systems do not exist. Moreover, data is not harmonized and comparable at the world level. \n\t\tTo obtain this data will require collecting it at municipal/city level with serious deficiencies in some areas such as data on mass transit and on transport infrastructure. \n\tThe European Commission, on the contrary, considers that 'this is a good indicator which can be collected in a relatively straightforward way' (DG REGIO, 2015). The assessment of the indicator done by the EC applies only for cities in the developed world, and not all. \n\tThe EC document highlights that the indicator was calculated for 80 European cities and stresses that the estimation requires the following data availability: (1) geo-coded public transport stops and the number of departures at each stop, (2) a high resolution GIS layer with population (for example census enumeration areas or a population grid) and (3) a street network (if available). \n\tHowever, these data requirements are not available in most middle income countries.\n\tUN-Habitat disagrees with this rating. This is a very relevant indicator. It is empirically proven that public transport makes cities more inclusive, safe and sustainable. \n\tEffective and low-cost transportation for mobility is critical for urban poverty and inequalities reduction, and economic development because it provides access to jobs, health care, education services and other public goods. \n\tClean Public transport is very efficient for the reduction of C02 emissions and therefore it contributes to climate change.",,,,,,,,,,"Information can be disaggregated by age and sex, including potential disadvantages such as disability, but it requires strong efforts and changes in mainstream mechanisms of data collection.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  11.3,FALSE,11,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-11.pdf,5,"By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries.",11.3.1,Ratio of land consumption rate to population growth rate,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  11.3,FALSE,11,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-11.pdf,5,"By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries.",11.3.2,Proportion of cities with a direct participation structure of civil society in urban planning and management that operate regularly and democratically,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  11.4,TRUE,11,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-11.pdf,6,Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world's cultural and natural heritage.,11.4.1,"Ukupni rashodi (javni i privatni) po glavi stanovnika utrošeni na očuvanje i zaštitu cjelokupne kulturne i prirodne baštine prema vrsti baštine (kulturna, prirodna, mješovita i oznaka Svjetske baštine), razini vlasti (nacionalna, regionalna i lokalna), vrsti rashoda (operativni izdaci / investicije) i vrsti privatnog financiranja (donacije u naravi, privatni neprofitni sektor i sponzorstvo)",UNESCO,,"The percentage of the national (or municipal) budget provided for maintaining and preserving cultural and natural heritage. This indicator represents the share of national (or municipal) budget which is dedicated to the safeguarding, protection of national cultural natural heritage including World Heritage sites. \n\n for equation, see report.",,"Protecting and safeguarding the world's cultural and natural heritage require public investment at different level of governmental including at city level. This indicator would allow insight whether countries are maintaining, expanding or decreasing their efforts for safeguarding their cultural natural heritage.",,,,,,,Administrative data in particular government (or municipal) budget and expenditure data.,,,,"Internationally comparable data are currently not available. However, the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) in collaboration with the UNESCO WHC would develop an appropriate data collection tool. The cultural and natural heritage sector will be defined according to the 2009 UNESCO Framework for Cultural Statistics (FCS) methodology (Domain A: Cultural and Natural Heritage). \nFinancial resources would be required in order to implement this new data collection.","Availability of public budget in culture in general will vary between countries. Issues of compiling public and private finances could result in the underestimation of the value of total investment in culture. It is important to take into account national transfer funds among different level of governmental (regional, state, municipal) to avoid double counting. An alternative could be to assess the public expenditure in culture. However, the COFOG classification may not be detailed enough to identify only heritage.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  11.5,TRUE,11,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-11.pdf,7,"By 2030, significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected and substantially decrease the direct economic losses relative to global gross domestic product caused by disasters, including water-related disasters, with a focus on protecting the poor and people in vulnerable situations.",11.5.1,"Number of deaths, missing persons and directly affected persons attributed to disasters per 100,000 population",UNISDR,,"Death: The number of people who died during the disaster, or directly after, as a direct result of the hazardous event \nMissing: The number of people whose whereabouts is unknown since the hazardous event. It includes people who are presumed dead although there is no physical evidence. The data on number of deaths and number of missing are mutually exclusive. \nAffected people: People who are affected by a hazardous event. Comment: People can be affected directly or indirectly. Affected people may experience short-term or long-term consequences to their lives, livelihoods or health and in the economic, physical, social, cultural and environmental assets. \nDirectly affected: People who have suffered injury, illness or other health effects; who were evacuated, displaced, relocated; or have suffered direct damage to their livelihoods, economic, physical, social, cultural and environmental assets. \nIndirectly affected: People who have suffered consequences, other than or in addition to direct effects, over time due to disruption or changes in economy, critical infrastructures, basic services, commerce, work or social, health and physiological consequences. In this indicator, given the difficulties in assessing the full range of all affected (directly and indirectly), UNISDR proposes the use of an indicator that would estimate ""directly affected"" as a proxy for the number of affected. This indicator, while not perfect, comes from data widely available and could be used consistently across countries and over time to measure the achievement of the Target B. From the perspective of data availability and measurability, it is proposed to build a composite indicator which consists of ""directly affected"", or those who are \n\tInjured or ill, \n\tEvacuated, \n\tRelocated and to measure the number who suffered direct damage to their livelihoods or assets, \n\tPeople whose houses were damaged or destroyed \n\tPeople who received food relief aid. \nInjured or ill: The number of people suffering from physical injuries, trauma or cases of disease requiring immediate medical assistance as a direct result of a hazardous event. \nEvacuated: The number of people who temporarily moved from where they were (including their place of residence, work places, schools and hospitals) to safer locations in order to ensure their safety. \nRelocated: The number of people who moved permanently from their homes to new sites due to hazardous event. Note: This definition excludes preventive relocation before the event. \nPeople whose houses were damaged or destroyed due to hazardous events: The estimated number of inhabitants previously living in the houses (housing units) damaged or destroyed. All the inhabitants of these houses (housing units) are assumed to be affected being in their dwelling or by direct consequence of the destruction/damage to their housings (housing units). An average number of inhabitants per house (housing unit) in the country can be used to estimate the value. \nHouses destroyed: Houses (housing units) levelled, buried, collapsed, washed away or damaged to the extent that they are no longer habitable. \nHouses damaged: Houses (housing units) with minor damage, not structural or architectural, which may continue to be habitable, although they may require some repair or cleaning. \nPeople who received food relief aid: The number of persons who received food /nutrition, by government or as humanitarian aid, during or in the aftermath of a hazardous event. \nHazardous event: The occurrence of a natural or human-induced phenomenon in a particular place during a particular period of time due to the existence of a hazard. \nHazard: A potentially damaging physical event, phenomenon or human activity that may cause the loss of life or injury, property damage, social and economic disruption or environmental degradation. UNISDR recommends setting NO threshold for recording hazardous event in order to monitor all hazardous events. Small-scale but frequent hazardous events that are not registered in international disaster loss databases account for an important share of damages and losses when they are combined, and often go unnoticed by the national and international community. These events, when accumulated, are often a source of poverty in developing countries but can be effectively addressed by well-designed policies. The scope of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 is ""the risk of small-scale and large-scale, frequent and infrequent, sudden and slow-onset disasters, caused by natural or man-made hazards as well as relate environmental, technological and biological hazards and risks"". Regarding the inclusion of biological and environmental hazards in natural hazards category and whether and how to integrate man-made hazards, UNISDR will discuss the issue with WHO and other organizations (for example, WHO would be in a better position in terms of data, knowledge and relationship with Member States and other stakeholders to monitor biological events including epidemics. However, we generally do not expect biological disasters will cause physical damages to facilities. ). Note: Terminology will be discussed and finalized in the Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group for Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction.","Summation of data on related indicators from national disaster loss databases. Make the sum a relative figure by using global population data (World Bank or UN Statistics information). Relativity is important because population growth (expected to be 9 billion in 2050) may translate into increased hazard exposure of population. The Expert Group recommends not using the indicators related with the people whose houses were damaged/destroyed in the computation. UNISDR and IRDR groups recommend using them as they can be estimated from widely available and verifiable data and reflect vulnerability and livelihood issues. Data on housing damage and destroyed is essential for economic loss, so using these indicators would not impose additional data collection burden. \nDouble-counting: From practical perspective, double counting of affected people is unavoidable (for example, injured and relocated) in many countries. Minimum double counting is summing 'number of injured' and Number of people whose housings were damaged or destroyed. Relocated is sub-set of number of people whose housings were destroyed. \nThe data can be disaggregated by hazard type. When applied to proposed target 13.1 and 15.3, hydrological, meteorological and climatological and indirectly biological disasters are monitored.","Cities around the world, as well as rural populations, witness growing disaster risks. Impacts of climate change on sustainable development are observed through both slow-onset events (e.g. sea level rise, increasing temperatures, ocean acidification, glacial retreat and related impacts, salinization, land and forest degradation, loss of biodiversity and desertification) and extreme weather events. Human loss can be measured by the number of deaths, missing, injured or ill, evacuated, relocated, people whose houses were damaged/destroyed and people who received food relief aid as a direct result of the hazardous events. \nCities are some of the most vulnerable areas to natural disasters. Unplanned urban development (e.g. informal settlements, overcrowding, inadequate infrastructures) exacerbates urban vulnerability to climate change impacts and hydro-meteorological and geological hazards. Over half of all coastal areas are urbanized and 21 of the world's 33 mega cities lie in coastal flood zones. SIDS and coastal regions are particularly affected by sea level rise, coastal flooding and erosion, and extreme events (e.g. tsunamis and storm surges) due to undermining natural protective barriers, low levels of development combined with rapid population growth in low lying coastal areas and inadequate capacity to adapt. Poor urban populations must often resort to unsustainable coping strategies and mechanisms. \nLarge numbers of people remain perilously close to falling into poverty, experiencing shocks that they are unable to cope with. For the poor, a shock of even a relatively short duration can have long term consequences. Several dimensions of poverty are closely related to environment, which is often affected by natural disasters. The poverty reduction agenda could include well-designed social protection scheme to help protecting the poor against sudden shocks and the development of capacities to better predict and prepare for such shocks. Better management of natural resources can themselves strengthen the resilience of the poor, by both reducing the likelihood of natural hazardous events and offering resources to help cope with them. Biodiversity provides ecosystem resilience and contributes to the ability to respond to unpredictable global changes and natural disasters. Healthy ecosystems act as buffers against natural hazards, providing valuable yet underutilized approaches for climate change adaptation, enhancing natural resilience and reducing the vulnerability of people, for example to floods and the effects of land degradation. These ecosystem services improve the sustainability and economic efficiency of built infrastructure, and are critical for sustainable and resilient urban areas. \nThis indicator will track human-related loss. The disaster loss data (particularly mortality) are significantly influenced by large-scale catastrophic event, which represent important outliers. UNISDR recommends countries to report the data by event, so complementary analysis can be done by both including and excluding such catastrophic events. \nThe indicator will build bridge between SDGs and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction because the reduction of human related loss is included in the Sendai Framework global targets and will also be monitored under the Sendai Framework Monitoring Mechanism. \n(mainly based on TST Issue Brief 2, 5, 20 and 23-26)",,,,,,,"National disaster loss database, reported to UNISDR",,,"By country, by event, by hazard type (e.g. disaggregation by climatological, hydrological, meteorological, geophysical, biological and extra-terrestrial for natural hazards is possible following IRDR* classification), by death/missing/injured or ill/evacuated/relocated/people whose houses were damaged/people whose houses were destroyed/people who received food relief aid. \n\t*Integrated Research on Disaster Risk (2014), Peril Classification and Hazard Glossary (IRDR DATA Publication No.1), Beijing: Integrated Research on Disaster Risk \nAdditionally, the Expert Group recommended disaggregation by age, sex, location of residence and other characteristics (e.g. disability) as relevant and possible. Aggregation of ""location of residence"": ideally by subnational administrative unit similar to municipality.",Summation of data from national disaster loss databases,"This is proposal by UNISDR based on our experience and knowledge built in the period under the Hyogo Framework for Action (2005-2015). The proposed indicator was further reviewed and examined by other UN agencies including FAO, GFDRR, IOM, UNCCD, UNDP, UNESCAP, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCR, UNOCHA, UNOOSA, UNOPS, UNU, UNWOMEN, WHO and WMO (though not all organizations listed here provided comments for this indicator) and submitted to the IAEG process in early-July 2015, then again reviewed by the Technical Expert Group consisting of more than 60 experts from UN system, academic and research, civil sector and private sector in 27-29 July 2015 and submitted and examined by the Member States in the 1st Open-ended Intergovernmental Expert Working Group on Indicators and Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction held in 29-30 September 2015. The suggested indicator is currently under review by the Member States and UNISDR is receiving written inputs from the Member States. \nThe proposed indicators will be also used to monitor Sendai Framework global targets and therefore the detailed definitions shall be discussed and agreed in Open-ended Intergovernmental Expert Working Group on Indicators and Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction, as outlined in Sendai Framework for Disaster Reduction 2015-2030. The Working Group is likely to finalize the discussion and submit the final report to the GA in December 2016. \nNot every country has a comparable national disaster loss database that is consistent with the UNISDR guidelines (current coverage is 85 countries. Additional 32 countries are expected to be covered in 2015- 16). Therefore, by 2020, it is expected that all countries will build/adjust the database according to the UNISDR guidelines and report the data to UNISDR.",Disaggregated by gender (if agreed by country in the Open-ended Intergovernmental Expert Working Group),,,"Related targets in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030: \n\tSubstantially reduce global disaster mortality by 2030, aiming to lower average per 100,000 global mortality between 2020-2030 compared to 2005-2015. Substantially reduce the number of affected people globally by 2030, aiming to lower the average global figure per 100,000 between 2020-2030 compared to 2005-2015. \nSendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030: \n\t(http://www.preventionweb.net/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf)",1.3,1.5,3.6,3.9,3.d,11.5,13.1,14.2,,,,,,15.3,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  11.5,TRUE,11,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-11.pdf,10,"By 2030, significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected and substantially decrease the direct economic losses relative to global gross domestic product caused by disasters, including water-related disasters, with a focus on protecting the poor and people in vulnerable situations.",11.5.2,"Direct economic loss in relation to global GDP, damage to critical infrastructure and number of disruptions to basic services, attributed to disasters",UNISDR,,"Direct economic loss: Direct loss is nearly equivalent to physical damage. The monetary value of total or partial destruction of physical assets existing in the affected area. Examples include loss to physical assets such as damaged housings, factories and infrastructure. Direct losses usually happen during the event or within the first few hours after the event and are often assessed soon after the event to estimate recovery cost and claim insurance payments. These are tangible and relatively easy to measure. Direct Economic loss in this indicator framework consists of agriculture loss, damage to industrial and commercial facilities, damage to housings and critical infrastructures. \n\tWe limit the economic loss into direct economic loss, excluding indirect loss (e.g. loss due to interrupted production) and macro-economic loss. The reason is that there is not yet universally standardized methodology to measure indirect and macro-economic loss while direct loss data monitoring is relatively simpler and more standardized. \nGlobal gross domestic product: Summation of GDP of Countries. GDP definition according to the World Bank. \nHazardous event: The occurrence of a natural or human-induced phenomenon in a particular place during a particular period of time due to the existence of a hazard. \nHazard: A potentially damaging physical event, phenomenon or human activity that may cause the loss of life or injury, property damage, social and economic disruption or environmental degradation. \nUNISDR recommends setting NO threshold for recording hazardous event in order to monitor all hazardous events. Small-scale but frequent hazardous events that are not registered in international disaster loss databases account for an important share of damages and losses when they are combined, and often go unnoticed by the national and international community. These events, when accumulated, are often a source of poverty in developing countries but can be effectively addressed by well-designed policies. The scope of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 is ""the risk of small-scale and large-scale, frequent and infrequent, sudden and slow-onset disasters, caused by natural or man-made hazards as well as relate environmental, technological and biological hazards and risks"". \nRegarding the inclusion of biological and environmental hazards in natural hazards category and whether and how to integrate man-made hazards, UNISDR will discuss the issue with WHO and other organizations (for example, WHO would be in a better position in terms of data, knowledge and relationship with Member States and other stakeholders to monitor biological events including epidemics. However, we generally do not expect biological disasters will cause physical damages to facilities. ). \n\tNote: Terminology will be discussed and finalized in the Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group for Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction.","The original national disaster loss databases usually register physical damage value (housing unit loss, infrastructure loss etc.). Need conversion from physical value to monetary value according to the UNISDR methodology. After converted, divide global direct economic loss by global GDP (inflation adjusted, constant USD) calculated from World Bank Development Indicators.","Cities around the world, as well as rural populations, witness growing disaster risks. Impacts of climate change on sustainable development are observed through both slow-onset events (e.g. sea level rise, increasing temperatures, ocean acidification, glacial retreat and related impacts, salinization, land and forest degradation, loss of biodiversity and desertification) and extreme weather events. The economic loss indicator would track loss to agricultural, industrial and commercial sectors and damage to housing and critical infrastructure. \nCities are some of the most vulnerable areas to natural disasters. Unplanned urban development (e.g. informal settlements, overcrowding, inadequate infrastructures) exacerbates urban vulnerability to climate change impacts and hydro-meteorological and geological hazards. Over half of all coastal areas are urbanized and 21 of the world's 33 mega cities lie in coastal flood zones. SIDS and coastal regions are particularly affected by sea level rise, coastal flooding and erosion, and extreme events (e.g. tsunamis and storm surges) due to undermining natural protective barriers, low levels of development combined with rapid population growth in low lying coastal areas and inadequate capacity to adapt. Poor urban populations must often resort to unsustainable coping strategies and mechanisms. \nLarge numbers of people remain perilously close to falling into poverty, experiencing shocks that they are unable to cope with. For the poor, a shock of even a relatively short duration can have long term consequences. Several dimensions of poverty are closely related to environment, which is often affected by natural disasters. The poverty reduction agenda could include well-designed social protection scheme to help protecting the poor against sudden shocks and the development of capacities to better predict and prepare for such shocks. Better management of natural resources can themselves strengthen the resilience of the poor, by both reducing the likelihood of natural hazardous events and offering resources to help cope with them. \nThe environment for food production is increasingly challenging, particularly for smallholders, due to environmental and climate-related factors. Similar to extreme income poverty, food insecurity continues to be predominantly concentrated in rural areas of developing countries, and disproportionately affects poor farmers, agricultural workers, pastoralists and rural communities. Common conditions for protracted crisis situations include frequent or continued exposure to shocks that undermine livelihoods, food and market systems. Special consideration needs to be given to population living in areas prone to environmental and natural disaster shocks. \nBiodiversity provides ecosystem resilience and contributes to the ability to respond to unpredictable global changes and natural disasters. Healthy ecosystems act as buffers against natural hazards, providing valuable yet underutilized approaches for climate change adaptation, enhancing natural resilience and reducing the vulnerability of people, for example to floods and the effects of land degradation. These ecosystem services improve the sustainability and economic efficiency of built infrastructure, and are critical for sustainable and resilient urban areas. \nThis indicator will track direct physical loss expressed in economic term. The disaster loss data (particularly mortality) are significantly influenced by large-scale catastrophic event, which represent important outliers. UNISDR recommends countries to report the data by event, so complementary analysis can be done by both including and excluding such catastrophic events. \nThe indicator will build bridge between SDGs and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction because the reduction of direct economic loss is included in the Sendai Framework global targets and will also be monitored under the Sendai Framework Monitoring Mechanism. \n(mainly based on TST Issue Brief 2, 3, 5, 20 and 23-26)",,,,,,,"National disaster loss database, reported to UNISDR",,,"By country, by event, by hazard type (e.g. disaggregation by climatological, hydrological, meteorological, geophysical, biological and extra-terrestrial for natural hazards is possible following IRDR* classification), by asset loss category. \n\t*Integrated Research on Disaster Risk (2014), Peril Classification and Hazard Glossary (IRDR DATA Publication No.1), Beijing: Integrated Research on Disaster Risk \nIdeally, in addition, by sub-national administrative unit.",Summation of data from national disaster loss databases and World Bank Development Indicators,"This is proposal by UNISDR based on our experience and knowledge built in the period under the Hyogo Framework for Action (2005-2015). The proposed indicator was further reviewed and examined by other UN agencies including FAO, GFDRR, IOM, UNCCD, UNDP, UNESCAP, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCR, UNOCHA, UNOOSA, UNOPS, UNU, UNWOMEN, WHO and WMO (though not all organizations listed here provided comments for this indicator) and submitted to the IAEG process in early-July 2015, then again reviewed by the Technical Expert Group consisting of more than 60 experts from UN system, academic and research, civil sector and private sector in 27-29 July 2015 and submitted and examined by the Member States in the 1st Open-ended Intergovernmental Expert Working Group on Indicators and Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction held in 29-30 September 2015. The suggested indicator is currently under review by the Member States and UNISDR is receiving written inputs from the Member States. \nThe proposed indicators will be also used to monitor Sendai Framework global targets and therefore the detailed definitions shall be discussed and agreed in Open-ended Intergovernmental Expert Working Group on Indicators and Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction, as outlined in Sendai Framework for Disaster Reduction 2015-2030. The Working Group is likely to finalize the discussion and submit the final report to the GA in December 2016. \nNot every country has a comparable national disaster loss database that is consistent with the UNISDR guidelines (current coverage is 85 countries. Additional 32 countries are expected to be covered in 2015-16). Therefore, by 2020, it is expected that all countries will build/adjust the database according to the UNISDR guidelines and report the data to UNISDR.",,,,Related targets in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030: \n\tReduce direct disaster economic loss in relation to global gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030. \nSendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030: \n\t(http://www.preventionweb.net/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf),1.5,2.4,3.d,11.5,13.1,13.b,14.2,15.3,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  11.6,TRUE,11,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-11.pdf,15,"By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management.",11.6.1,Udio urbanog čvrstog otpada koji se redovito sakuplja s odgovarajućim završnom obradom iz ukupnog čvrstog otpada gradova,UN-HABITAT,,"The recycling rate is the tonnage recycled from municipal waste divided by the total municipal waste arising. Recycling includes material recycling, composting and anaerobic digestion. Municipal waste consists to a large extent of waste generated by households, but may also include similar wastes generated by small businesses and public institutions and collected by the municipality; this latter part of municipal waste may vary from municipality to municipality and from country to country, depending on the local waste management system (Eurostat, 2013)","Solid waste recycling = ( volume of waste recycled / total collected waste ) * 100 \n\n Benchmark \n \nMin = 0% \nMax = 63.33% \nCalculated from data from 2010 to 2012 available at Eurostat (2014). \n__* = 50 \nObtained from European Parliament, Council of the European Union (2008). \nStandardization (S) \nsee report for Standardization details",Recycling and reusing solid waste is a way to reduce the amount of waste to be disposed in landfills. A prosper city seeks to recycle the most part of its solid waste to increase the lifespan of its landfills and to profit solid waste as much as possible.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"Bibliographic references: \nEurostat (2013). Recycling rate of municipal waste (t2020_rt120). [1] \nEurostat (2014). Recycling rate of municipal waste (t2020_rt120). [2] \nEuropean Parliament, Council of the European Union (2008). \nDirective 2008/98/EC on waste and repealing certain Directives. Official Journal of the European Union. [3] \nURL references: \n[1]: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_SDDS/EN/t2020_rt120_esmsip.htm#relatedmd1401955141433, accessed June 11, 2014. \n[2]: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=t2020_rt120, accessed June 11, 2014. \n[3]: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0098, accessed June 11, 2014.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  11.6,TRUE,11,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-11.pdf,16,"By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management.",11.6.2,Godišnje srednje vrijednosti finih čestica (npr. PM2.5 i PM10) u gradovima (ponderirana populacija),WHO,,,,"Mean or average: Levels of air pollution can vary drastically from day to day based on local weather conditions, geography, economic output, etc. Articulating the indicator as annual mean is a more specific indicator for monitoring the health and environmental impacts of sustainable growth and development in cities over time. WHO air quality guidelines provide specific recommendations on the mean levels of fine particulate matter which can support measuring the per capita health impacts related to any improvements or degradation in air quality in cities. Incidents of high air pollution levels also have health impacts, but these are less important than longer term exposures, and related statistics are less reliable in view of greater variability due to external factors, we therefore do recommend a more specific articulation of this indicator to as annual means as a way to monitor SDG achievement. \nFine particulate matter: Fine particulate matter (i.e. PM2.5) can be directly linked to estimates of health risks. Coarse particulate matter (i.e. PM10) measurements can be converted to PM2.5, but will inherently introduce additional uncertainty to estimates of impacts (e.g. health). Articulating this indicator to fine particulate matter increases its specificity and its relevance for monitoring the health impacts of sustainable development policies. \nPopulation weighted: The population size of cities vary within a country. Weighting annual mean air quality measurements of fine PM by the city population size relative to other cities in a country increases the suitability and measurability of this indicator at a national scale. Furthermore it makes estimating the related impacts on health and other sustainable development issues (e.g. improvements in energy efficiency from sustainable transport) more feasbile and accurate for monitoring progress.",,,,,,,"WHO Ambient Air Pollution in Cities Database: As part of its core functions, WHO monitors and assesses trends in major health risk factors including ambient air pollution. The WHO's Ambient air pollution database provides annual mean concentrations of particulate matter based on daily air measurements of particulate matter (PM10 or PM2.5) or data which could be aggregated into annual means. In a few exceptional cases, where annual means could not be calculated, measurements covering a more limited part of the year were used. \nThe primary source of data are official national/sub-national reports, national/sub-national web sites containing measurements of PM10 or PM2.5and the relevant national agencies. Furthermore, measurements reported by the following regional networks are used: the Asian Clean Air Initiative for Asia, and Airbase for Europe. In the absence of data from the previous sources, data from (a) UN Agencies, (b) Development agencies and (c) articles from peer reviewed journals are used. \nIn order to present air quality that is largely representative for human exposure, only measurements characterized as urban background, residential areas, commercial and mixed areas are used. Stations characterized as particular ""hot spots"" or exclusively industrial areas were excluded, unless they were contained in reported city means and could not be dissociated. \nCurrently the WHO database houses data from over 1,600 cities, from 91 countries for the years 2008 to 2013 inclusive (Figures 1 and 2). \nThis database is updated on a regular basis can be released annually to support monitoring of this SDG target. \n WHO Global Health Observatory: The WHO Global Health Observatory (GHO) houses information on both the exposure (i.e. ambient air quality measurements of fine particulate matter) and associated disease burden. In addition, the GHO provides graphs, tables and interactive tools to depict air pollution levels across regions and countries which can support countries in visualizing their situation and in monitoring progress towards SDG11 more readily. \nWHO air quality guidelines: global update 2005: WHO air quality guidelines provide normative guidance on pollutant levels that can be considered ""healthy"". They also provide information about the sources of air pollution and the health impacts from exposure to different pollutants which serve as an important information resource for countries as they develop and implement plans for sustainable development. The recommendations of specific pollutant levels found in the guidelines serve as the basis for estimating the attributable disease burden to ambient air pollution. These guidelines are updated regularly and publicly available. \nData gaps & opportunities to address such gaps Several gaps in the currently available data for monitoring target 11.7 along with some recommendations of upcoming opportunities for filling such gaps are provided below. \nMeasurements of fine particulate matter: PM2.5 measurements can directly be linked to estimates of health risks using an integrated exposure response function, and are therefore of particular interest. PM10 measurements first need to be converted to PM2.5 in order to do. In high-income countries, PM2.5 measurements are already being widely performed. In low- and middle-income countries, however, while PM2.5 measures are increasingly being developed, they are not yet available in many countries. In low-and middle-income countries, annual mean PM2.5 measurements could be accessed in 69 cities, but PM10 in 512 cities. In high-income countries, 816 cities with PM2.5 measures could be accessed, against 544 cities with PM10 measurements. \nFor cities with PM10 reported as the only monitored PM parameter, PM2.5 concentration can be calculated from PM10 using national conversion factors (PM2.5/PM10 ratio) estimated as population-weighted averages of city-specific conversion factors for the country. City specific conversion factors were estimated as the mean ratio of PM2.5 to PM10 of stations for the same year, and alternatively as the ratio of city values if the values by station were not provided. If national conversion factors are not available, regional ones can be used, which are obtained by averaging country-specific conversion factors. \nDefinition of cities: There is no agreed upon definition of city and/or urban area. Currently the WHO Ambient air pollution database includes information on cities with populations of 100,000 or more. This is partly due to the fact that for some countries ambient air quality information is only available for larger cities whereas for other countries date is available for cities with just a few thousand inhabitants. In general, the inclusion of cities with less than 100,000 inhabitants did usually not significantly modify the country mean as compared to considering only cities larger than 100,000 inhabitants. WHO is able to update its database and reporting to include cities/urban areas to be in line with the definition agreed upon for the monitoring and tracking of SDG 11 on cities. \nGeographic coverage of monitoring: Measurement of ambient air quality in cities is currently limited to 91 countries. Below is a map of the current sources of ambient air quality monitoring housed in the WHO's Ambient air quality database (Figure 3). Although, as noted, there is a paucity of data from low- and middle-income countries, the level of monitoring and reporting in these areas is rapidly increasing each year. In addition, the Climate and Clean Air Coalition's Urban Health Initiative aims to increase monitoring in urban areas of LMIC and will be providing guidance and resources to increase air quality monitoring capacity. \nLocation of monitoring: Sampling locations of air quality measurements may change within a period of monitoring, and consequently lead to a variation over time in annual mean PM levels for a city that does not necessarily reflect actual changes in air quality but rather a difference in the pollution levels at the new measurement sites. To address such a challenge, appropriate guidance and/or a protocol can be provided to countries/cities, about the importance of maintaining specific sampling locations to monitor trends and impacts. Through its work within the Climate and Clean Air Coalition's Urban Health Initiative, WHO will be working with a number of cities to develop guidance on how and where to install air quality monitoring systems as well as the importance in consistency in monitoring practices. This information or guidance will be freely available to other cities to use and can be adapted to their local circumstances as appropriate for better monitoring of target 11.7.",,This database is updated on a regular basis can be released annually to support monitoring of this SDG target.,,,,,"Currently the WHO database houses data from over 1,600 cities, from 91 countries for the years 2008 to 2013 inclusive",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  11.7,TRUE,11,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-11.pdf,21,"By 2030, provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces, in particular for women and children, older persons and persons with disabilities.",11.7.1,"Average share of the built-up area of cities that is open space for public use for all, by sex, age and persons with disabilities",UN-HABITAT,,"Public space is publicly owned land and available for public use. Public spaces encompass a range of environments including streets, sidewalks squares, gardens, parks, conservation areas. Each public space has its own spatial, historic, environmental, social and economic features. They can be publically or privately managed. \n\n \nPublic Space: \nHaving sufficient public space allows cities and regions to function efficiently and equitably. Reduced amounts of public space impact negatively on quality of life, social inclusion, infrastructure development, environmental sustainable and productivity. It is documented that well designed and maintained streets and public spaces result in lower crime and violence. \nMaking space for formal and informal economic activities, recovering and maintaining public spaces for a diversity of users in a positive way, and making services and opportunities available to marginalized residents, enhance social cohesion and economic security. \nUncontrolled rapid urbanization generally creates settlement patterns with dangerously low proportions of public space. As a result, these places are unable to accommodate safe pedestrian and vehicular rights of way, land for critical infrastructure like water, sewerage and waste collection, recreational spaces, green areas and parks that contribute to social cohesion and protected ecological hotspots and corridors. \nAs new cities also develop they have reduced allocations of land for public space especially streets. On average, at 15% the land allocated to streets in new planned areas is substantially less than the standard and in unplanned areas the situation is considerably worse with an average of 2%. The generally accepted minimum standard for public space in higher density settlements (150 inhabitants or more per/hectare) is 45% (30% for streets and sidewalks and 15% for open public space).Total city space refers to the built-up area of the city. \nThe proportion of urban areas dedicated to streets and public spaces is a crucial feature of the spatial plans of cities. The road network is the integrative and dynamic factor between individuals and socioeconomic activities. It is a structuring component of geographic space and defines the socio-dynamics of an area being conditioned by the spatial pattern, which restricts the location of roads and human settlements. \nShort and direct pedestrian and cycling routes require highly connected network of paths and streets around small, permeable blocks. These features are primarily important for walking and for transit station accessibility, which can be easily discouraged by detours.\nA prosperous city seeks a tight network of paths and streets offering multiple routes to many destinations that also make walking and cycling trips varied and enjoyable. In fact, cities that have adequate streets, public spaces and greater connectivity are more liveable and productive. \nThe use of this indicator aims to integrate urban form and spatial analysis in the monitoring of Goal 11 of the Sustainable Development Goals. \nSpatial indicators are vital tools supporting sustainable urban and regional planning. They are valuable in the generation of spatial data that is critical for priority setting for harmonious and equitable distribution of resources and investments in the territory. This information supports decision-making based on evidence and facilitates effective urban management and the setting of local monitoring mechanisms to assess impact in localized areas. \nArea of public space as a proportion of total city space, including the land allocated to streets. The indicator is calculated integrating to metrics: a) land allocated to open public space; b) land allocated to streets.","Proportion of urban area allocated to open public spaces, including street and sidewalks. \n\n Proportion of Total Open Public Space = ( (Total surface of open public space + Total surface of land allocated to streets) / Total surface of built up area of the urban agglomeration ) \nUnit of Measurement: % \n\n The method to estimate the area of public space is based on three steps: 1) spatial analysis to delimit the built-up area of the city; 2) estimation of the total open public space and; 3) estimation of the total area allocated to streets. \n\t1. Spatial analysis to delimit the built-up area. Delimit the built-up area of the urban agglomeration and calculate the total area (square kilometers). \n\t\t1.1 Satellite imagery: Use of exiting layers of satellite imagery ranging from open sources such as Google Earth and US Geological Survey/NASA imagery Landsat to more sophisticated and higher resolution land cover data sets. Images will be analyzed for the latest available year. \n\t\t1.2 Delimitation of built-up area of the urban agglomeration: The delimitation of the urban agglomeration refers to the total area occupied by the built-up area and its urbanized open space. The delimitation of the study area distinguishes urban, suburban and rural areas based on the built-up densities. This indicators includes urban (more than 50% built-up density) and suburban areas (between 50% to 10% built-up density (refer to annex 1 ""Measurement of the Street Connectivity Index""). \n\t2. Open public space: mapping and calculation of total areas of open public space within the defined urban boundaries based on the built-up area. \n\t\t2.1 Definition of open public space: An open public space is related to universal access. Open public spaces include only the following types: \n\t\t\tParks: open spaces inside a municipality that provide free air recreation and contact with nature. Their principal characteristic is the significant proportion of green area. \n\t\t\tCivic parks: open spaces created by building agglomeration around an open area, which was later transformed into a representative, civic area. They are characterised by considerable nature, specifically gardens. They are good place for cultural events and passive recreation. \n\t\t\tSquares: open spaces created by building agglomeration around an open area. Its main characteristics are the significant proportion of architectonic elements and interaction among buildings and the open area. Squares are usually public spaces that are relevant to the city due to their location, territorial development, or cultural importance. \n\t\t\tRecreational green areas: public green areas that contribute to environmental preservation. All recreational green areas must guarantee accessibility and must be linked to urban areas. Their main functions are ornamental and passive recreation. \n\t\t\tFacility public areas: open meeting spaces and recreational facilities that are part of city facilities (defined as places that are elementary to all cities; i.e., public libraries, stadium, public sports centres, etc.). These areas have the following characteristics: public property, free transit and access, and both active and passive recreation. (e.g., the public area outside a stadium). \n\t\t2.2 Inventory of open public space. Information can be obtained from legal documents outlining publicly owned land and well defined land use plans. In some cases where this information is lacking, incomplete or outdated, open sources and communitybased maps, which are increasingly recognized as a valid source of information, can be a viable alternative. \n\t\t2.3 Computation of total area of open public space. The inventory of open public spaces is digitalized in existing maps and vectorised to allow computation of surfaces. The total of open public area is divided by the total built-up area of the city to obtain the proportion. \n\t3. Land allocated to streets: calculation of the total area allocated to streets based on sampling techniques as a proportion of the total surface of the built-up area as per definition above. \n\t\t3.1 Definition of streets. For this indicator, streets are defined as the space used by pedestrian or vehicles in order to go from one place to another in the city and also in order to interact. More and more, local population recognizes streets as public spaces and as an important 'common' of the city. The area of the streets include the carriageway, the median, the roundabouts, the traffic islands, the sidewalk, the cycle tracks, planting zones and storm drainage; in other words, the right of way limited by private properties and/or natural obstacles such as rivers. \nIn informal settlements or slum areas where sidewalks are missing, the main references for limiting the street area are the physical boundaries used to demarcate the private properties. Unpaved roads are also considered as streets. \n\t\t3.2 Sampling technique for the estimation of land allocated to streets. The estimation of the total area of the street is based on the following methodology: \n\t\t\ta. Define the boundary of the built-up area. \n\t\t\tb. Generate the Halton sequence of sample points of the urban area bounding box for an average density of 10 points per Km2. \n\t\t\tc. Extract the sample points that are within the urban area boundary. \n\t\t\td. Buffer the points to get sample areas (circles) with an area of 10 Ha each (0.1 Km2). \n\t\t\te. For each sample area in the sequence: i) check the completeness of the street network using 'open street maps' (OSM cartography on streets) within the sample area, and complete it if necessary comparing it with the most recent satellite imagery of the urban area; ii) define and delimit streets as per definition; iii) measure the street widths on the orthophoto (i.e. Bing) and store it in the OSM data base; iv) download the OSM cartography; v) superimpose (clip) the OSM data with the sample areas; vi) calculate the land allocated to street for each sample area. \n\t\t\tf. Repeat the process for the following sample areas until the variations are within a certain margin (95% confidence limits). \n\t\t3.3 Computation of total area of land allocated to streets. The average of the sample areas provide the total land allocated to streets. \n\n Benchmark \nProportion of Total Open Public Space \nMin = 0 % \nMax = 45 % \nTotal Open Public Space (%) \nMin = 0 % \nMax = 15 % \nLand Allocated to Street (%) \nMin = 0 % \nMax = 30% \n\n Standardization \nsee report for Standardization details \n\n Example \nsee report for Example","This indicator provides information about the amount of open public areas in a city. Cities that improve and sustain the use of public space, including streets, enhance community cohesion, civic identity, and quality of life. Having access to open public spaces does not only improve the quality of life: it is also a first step toward civic empowerment and greater access to institutional and political spaces.",,,,,,,,,,,,"In some cities, open sources data for satellite imagery may be of low quality or not clearly defined. \nTypes of open public spaces vary by city; however, the types listed above are the most commonly accepted. \nIt is unusual to obtain complete information about city streets. It is sometimes necessary to make adjustments as suggested in the methodology. This is particularly the case in slum areas. Community-based work can be a solution to this problem.",,,"Previous use of the indicator \nThis indicator has been widely use as part of the research project to monitor urban expansions in a global sample of cities (200 cities) developed by UN-Habitat and the Stern School of Business of New York University (2014/2015). \nThe indicator is also used as part of UN-Habitat City Prosperity Initiative that is being implemented in 300 cities across the world to monitor local and global conditions of city sustainability and prosperity (2012/2015). The indicator was used in a sample of 120 cities as part of the study ""Streets as Public Spaces and Drivers of Urban Prosperity"" published by UN-Habitat (2013) http://unhabitat.org/streets-as-public-spaces-and-drivers-of-urban-prosperity. \n\n Possibilities for further development \nWith sufficient data this indicator allows for sub-city analysis and for the disaggregation of the information at neighbourhood level employing Small Area Statistics Analysis. \nBased on the on-going global programme of the City Prosperity Initiative, and the use of the City Prosperity Index (CPI) the ""Land Allocated to Street"" measurement can be used as leading variable articulated to other two key metrics that use the same method to measure the efficiency of ""Urban Form"" within the dimension of infrastructure development. These two metrics are: 1) street intersection density (the number of street intersections per square kilometre of land); 2) street density (the number of kilometre of urban streets per square kilometre of land). Together these three metrics have been used to measure sustainable urban development and city prosperity in more than 200 cities. \nMoreover, based on the same initiative and the CPI further measurements of ""Open Public Space"" can be conducted by analysing the percentage of the population living in proximity to open public spaces (population located less than 300 meters away from an open public space and 1 km from a major open public space). This complementary measurement has a very strong spatial component. \n\n Recommendation \nThe proposed indicator for Target 11.7 is part of the City Prosperity Index (CPI). UNHabitat recommends that the CPI can be used as a global framework for the measurement of all targets of Goal 11 of the SDGs. With necessary adjustments, this index can identify, quantify, evaluate, monitor and report on progress made by cities and countries on Goal 11. \nThe adoption of this global framework has several advantages: adopt a systemic approach of the city; provide a single value of the state of the city; establish benchmarks for local and global monitoring; create baseline data and information; establish a global platform for comparability; identify priorities of sustainable urban development; provides evidencebased for policy-making and accountability; and create local/national monitoring mechanisms.","References \nUN-Habitat (2014) Guidelines and Metadata on the City Prosperity Initiative, use of selected indicators, Nairobi. \nUN-Habitat (2013) Streets as Public Spaces and Drivers of Urban Sustainability, Nairobi. \nUN-Habitat (2013) The relevance of street patterns and public space in urban areas, Nairobi. \nInstitute for Transportation and Development Policy (2013) TOD Standard, v. 2.0, New York. \nURL references \n[1]: http://epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/ptfd_primer.pdf",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  11.7,TRUE,11,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-11.pdf,26,"By 2030, provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces, in particular for women and children, older persons and persons with disabilities.",11.7.2,"Udio osoba koje su bile žrtve fizičkog ili spolnog uznemiravanja, prema spolu, dobi, statusu invaliditeta i mjestu uznemiravanja, u prethodnih 12 mjeseci",UN-WOMEN,,"Number of girls and women aged 15+ who were subjected to physical or sexual harassment in the last 12 months, as percentage of all women aged 15+, disaggregated by perpetrator and place of occurrence (of latest episode). Many international bodies, national legislatures and courts have prohibited sexual harassment but there is no agreed universal definition of the term.[1] Most existing studies about sexual harassment are focused on working life or educational environments and measure unwelcome and unwanted sexual acts.[1,2] Because of the lack of universal definition, data for this indicator are not comparable. Currently, comparable data exist only for the 28 European Union countries (see below for more details on existing measures).",,"Sexual harassment is a violation of women's human rights and a prohibited form of violence against women in many countries.[4] Sexually harassing conduct causes devastating physical and psychological injuries to a large percentage of women in workplaces around the world. In urban and rural areas, developed or developing countries, women and girls are constantly subjected to these forms of violence on streets, on public transport, in shopping centres and in public parks, in and around schools and workplaces, in public sanitation facilities and water and food distribution sites, or in their own neighborhoods. Such harassment reinforces the subordination of women to men in society, violates women's dignity and creates a health and safety hazard in public spaces. \nIf women and girls are to enjoy a life free from violence, policymakers need to ensure that public spaces are free from any form of violence, including sexual harassment.",,,,"In 2014, the European Union Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) conducted the first comprehensive survey on violence against women in 28 EU countries. It is based on interviews with 42,000 women across the EU, who were asked about their experiences of physical, sexual and psychological violence, including incidents of intimate partner violence. The survey also included questions on stalking, sexual harassment, and the role played by new technologies in women's experiences of abuse.[3] \nTo measure sexual harassment and stalking, the survey adopted a broader scope, asking respondents first if they have experienced specific forms of sexual harassment in any situation, before asking in more detail who was involved. The information concerning the perpetrators allows the survey to distinguish incidents which are linked to various situations, including in public spaces and in employment. The survey covered 11 possible acts of sexual harassment which were unwanted and offensive according to respondents. The categories include: \n\tUnwelcome touching, hugging or kissing \n\tSexually suggestive comments or jokes that made [the respondent] feel offended \n\tInappropriate invitations to go out on dates \n\tIntrusive questions about [the respondent's] private life that made her feel offended \n\tIntrusive comments about [the respondent's] physical appearance that made her feel offended \n\tInappropriate staring or leering that made [the respondent] feel intimidated \n\tSomebody sending or showing [the respondent] sexually explicit pictures, photos or gifts that made her feel offended \n\tSomebody indecently exposing themselves to [the respondent] \n\tSomebody made [the respondent] watch or look at pornographic material against her wishes \n\tUnwanted sexually explicit emails or SMS messages that offended [the respondent] \n\tInappropriate advances that offended [the respondent] on social networking websites such as Facebook, or in internet chat rooms \nBased on these 11 items, the FRA survey revealed that at the EU level, 55% of all women have at least once been victims of sexual harassment and stalking during their lifetime and 21% have been victimized over the last 12 months.[3] In addition to examining the prevalence and nature of each of these specific acts, sexual harassment can also be analysed in four broad groups: \n\tPhysical forms of harassment: unwelcome touching, hugging or kissing; \n\tVerbal forms of harassment: sexually suggestive, offensive, comments or jokes; inappropriate invitations to go out on dates; intrusive, offensive questions about private life; intrusive, offensive comments about a woman's physical appearance; \n\tNon-verbal forms of harassment: inappropriate, intimidating staring or leering; receiving or being shown offensive, sexually explicit pictures, photos or gifts; somebody indecently exposing themselves; being made to watch or look at pornographic material against one's wishes; \n\tCyber-harassment: receiving unwanted, offensive, sexually explicit emails or SMS messages; inappropriate, offensive advances on social networking websites or in internet chat rooms.",,,"Data for this indicator can be collected through specialized violence against women surveys, crime victimization surveys or through modules in multipurpose surveys such as DHS and MICS (in the case of MICS and DHS data are limited to women aged 15-49). Disaggregating by place of occurrence of latest episode (e.g. workplace, street, public park etc.) would also distinguish between sexual harassment at work (target 8.8) and in public spaces (11.7).",,,"In order to distinguish between harassment that happens in workplaces or in public spaces such as streets and parks, this indicator should be disaggregated by perpetrator and place of occurrence. It is also important to disaggregate this indicator by age given that young women might be more .. ?",UN Women,"Due to the lack of agreed definition and comparable data, this indicator is currently classified as Tier III. The methodological work and testing which will be conducted in 2016 and 2017 will build on the FRA survey. Data collection would start in 2017-18 once methodology is developed and agreed.","Addresses women and girls' autonomy and freedom from violence in public spaces. In terms of linkages, it can monitor targets 5.2 (eliminating violence against women and girls), 8.8 (protecting labour right and safe working environments) and 16.1 (significantly reducing all forms of violence everywhere).",,,"[1] The Advocates for Human Rights (2010). ""What is Sexual Harassment in the Workplace?"". http://www.stopvaw.org/What_is_Sexual_Harassment.html \n[2] United Nations General Assembly. 2006. In-depth study on all forms of violence against women. Report of the Secretary-General. \n[3] European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. Violence Against Women: An EUWide Survey. Main Results. \n[4] UN Women (2011). Progress of the World's Women: In Pursuit of Justice.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  11.a,TRUE,11,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-11.pdf,28,"Support positive economic, social and environmental links between urban, peri-urban and rural areas by strengthening national and regional development planning.",11.a.1,"Proportion of population living in cities that implement urban and regional development plans integrating population projections and resource needs, by size of city",UN-HABITAT,,,"Develop a country score card that assesses and tracks progress on the extent to which national urban policy (development and implementation) satisfies the following criteria as qualifiers, based on participation, partnership, coordination and cooperation of actors: \n\t1) responds to population dynamics \n\t2) ensures balanced regional and territorial development \n\t3) prepares for infrastructure and services development \n\t4) promotes urban land-use efficiency \n\t5) enhances resilience to climate change \n\t6) protects public space \n\t7) develops effective urban governance systems \n\t8) Increase local fiscal space \nThis indicator places particular emphasis on the aspect of national and regional development planning and the notion of inclusion of sectors and actors, articulated on national urban policies (NUP). The indicator has various key qualifiers that are scored between 0-5 (0-none, and 5 for full compliance). \nTools to be used to support the reporting on this indicator include: baseline, benchmarking, point-of-service surveys, scorecard, peer-review and experts opinion, performance monitoring and reporting, focus group discussions, gap and content analysis. \nWith initial support of UN-Habitat and partners tracking and assessment tools and methods will be developed, piloted and rolled out at country level to assess national urban policies developed and implemented based on the qualifiers listed above. Based on expert opinion, the assessment of the qualifiers of the indicator will target national government institutions as well as other key urban stakeholders from academia, private sector, and civil society organization, as per specific criteria of selection of these stakeholders. A threshold will be established to ascertain the level of satisfaction of each qualifier. \nThe method for tracking and analysing progress on national urban policies will collate information on adopted policies, conventions, laws, government programs, and other initiatives that comprise an urban policy. This information would be in most cases already available. The analysis will cover the qualifiers listed above. \nThe standard definition of National Urban Policy5 will be extended and adapted to country context and may include where applicable terms such as National Urban Plan, Frameworks, Strategies, etc. as long as they are aligned with the above qualifiers. \nFor each of the 8 items defined above, policies will be scored on a scale of 1 to 5 for achievement or lack of achievement. \nOverall aggregate national scores (X) will range from 8 to 40 and these will be standardized to the scale of 0-100 using the following approach. \nIf (X) is the observed aggregate value of the score for the policy performance using the above criterion, then its standardized value X(S) will be computed as; X(s) = 100 ( (X - Min(X) / Max(X) - Min(X) ) \nWhere, Max (X) and Min (X) are the maximum and minimum values observed for X which is 8 and 40, respectively. Countries that achieve maximum values on the scorecard i.e. Max (X) =40, the value assigned via standardization will be 100 while those that achieve minimum score i.e. Min (X) =8 the value assigned via standardization will be 0. \nUnit: Number/dimensionless Number of countries which have scored above the threshold and are making progress on the range of qualifiers. When analysing the data and the score card, the scorecard of each country could be used to ascertain the overall performance of countries which could then be aggregated by regional groups and specific qualifiers. The scorecard will point to concrete policy recommendations, particularly for qualifiers that need particular attention.","Relevance: With the majority of mankind currently living in cities, and the number poised to increase further by 2030, the success of SDGs will depend largely on how urbanisation is well coordinated and managed. Considering that urbanisation is as a tool for development, many countries8 are now embarking on the development and implementation of national urban policies as tangible instruments to coordinate stakeholders' efforts, harness the benefits of urbanisation while mitigating its externalities. \nThis particular indicator is very relevant for tracking national progress on all other areas in the SDGs and targets where urban and policies are mentioned along with the above 8 qualifiers. This indicator is one of the key metrics to benchmark and monitor urbanisation and asserts the national leadership and political will of national governments. This indicator is based on the notion that the development and implementation of national urban policies should support participation, partnership, cooperation and coordination of actors and facilitate dialogue. \nThis indicator will provide a good barometer on global progress on sustainable national urban policies. It serves as gap analysis to support policy recommendations. The indicator can identify good practices and policies among countries that can promote partnership and cooperation between all stakeholders. \nThis indicator is both process oriented and aspirational and has the potential to support the validation of Goal 11 and other SDGs indicators with an urban component. The indicators has the ability to work at multi jurisdictions level, covering a number of areas while taking care of urban challenges in a more integrated national manner. The indicator has a strong connection to the target, addressing the fundamental spatial and territorial aspect of national urban policy in the context of urban, peri-urban and rural areas. \nSuitability: \nThis indicator epitomises the universality tenet and spirit of the SDGs. It is clearly suitable for all countries and can be disaggregated and/or aggregated by areas of development as explained in the methodology section of this metadata. The indicator will be suitable to assess commitment to address urban challenges and respond to the opportunities that urbanization brings. It clearly responds to Goal 11 harnessing the power of urbanisation for the common good. The indicator is strongly connected to other SDGs goals and targets.",,,,,,,"There are several data sources that could be used \n\t1. Official documents available in national administrations, \n\t2. Database of national urban policies by United Nations - and other international organizations, UN-Habitat had developed a National Urban Policy Database as a repository of official urban policies documents and related; UNHabitat had also developed the UrbanLex, a database of laws and policies on urban matters. \n\t3. Experts' and stakeholders' opinion","The analysis and reporting of the data collected can be presented and assessed based on the qualifiers by region and compared to HDI, GDP, etc. For example: \n\tNumber of countries that have developed and implemented national urban policy that responds to population dynamics; \n\tNumber of countries that have developed and implemented national urban policy that ensures balanced regional and territorial development; \n\tNumber of countries that have developed and implemented national urban policy that prepares for infrastructure and services development; \n\tNumber of countries that have developed and implemented national urban policy that promotes urban land-use efficiency; \n\tNumber of countries that have developed and implemented national urban policy that enhances resilience to climate change; \n\tNumber of countries that have developed and implemented national urban policy that protects public space; \n\tNumber of countries that have developed and implemented urban policy that develops effective urban governance systems. \n\tNumber of countries that have developed and implemented national urban policy that increase local fiscal space.",Every two years,"This indicator could be disaggregated by geographic location and other characteristics relevant in national contexts. For example, national level vs local/state level, city and regional levels. This indicator could be further disaggregated by economic sector (GDP) and Human development Index (HDI). \nNational data collected through assessment could be also aggregated at the regional and global to measure trends.",,"Feasibility: \nUN-Habitat had undertaken a comprehensive review of urban policies and the methodology used could form the basis for the Global State Urban Policy and Scorecard to be published every two years. Based on the baseline developed by UNHabitat, it would be quite doable to routinely assess the status of national urban policies and ascertain progress made by countries to develop and implement policies based on agreed qualifiers. The work will benefit from various on-going initiatives of policies review and diagnostic undertaken by OECD, UN-Habitat and World Bank. Further methodological work would be needed to identify a list of criteria that have to be satisfied in order to attribute a value to the relevant developmentoriented policy (i.e. policies supporting job creation, innovation, land-use efficiency, public space, etc.). \nLimitations:\nThe data for this indicator will be based on the robustness of the assessment framework developed and pilot tested in selected countries Baseline data and benchmarks will build on UN-Habitat work on regional assessments, which need to be validated by key stakeholders. There could be a challenge for consistent and cost-effective data collection and analysis. As the indicator mainly aims to track progress on the number of countries developing and implementing national urban policies, it will not suppose specific judgements of any individual county's policies. It will not be used to produce any global or regional ranking. There might be some limitations in correlating and quantifying the contribution and attribution of urban policy to the overall change and outcomes on the ground. Nevertheless, careful design of the baseline and benchmarking would provide clear indications on the possible impact on urban policy implementation on people's quality of life",,,,"Bibliographic References: \nOECD (2015), Building Successful Cities: A National Urban Policy Framework \nOECD (Various years), Urbanisation reviews (various countries: China, Mexico, Poland, Chile, Korea) \nUN-Habitat and Cities Alliance (2014), The evolution of National Urban Policy: A global Overview \nUN-Habitat (Forthcoming): Global State of National Urban Policies \nUN-Habitat, 2015, Assessment Framework for UN-Habitat sub-programme 2 \nUN-Habitat (2015) Guiding Framework for National Urban Policy (Forthcoming) \nUN-Habitat (2015) Diagnostic Framework for NUP \nWorld Bank (Various years) Urbanisation Review (China, Colombia, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Korea, Sri Lanka, Turkey and Vietnam) \n\nURL References: \n[1]: http://unhabitat.org/initiatives-programmes/national-urban-policies/ \n[2] http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/urbandevelopment/publication/urbanization-reviews \n[3] http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/urban-rural-and-regional-development/oecd-urban-policy-reviews_23069341 \n[4] http://www.urbangateway.org/icnup/2015/home",1.4,1.5,2.3,2.a,5.2,5.a,6.1,6.2,,,,,,7.2,7.3,8.3,8.5,8.6,9.1,9.4,9.a,10.4,12.5,13.1,13.b,15.9,16.7,16.a,17.14,17.17,17.b,
  11.b,TRUE,11,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-11.pdf,33,"By 2020, substantially increase the number of cities and human settlements adopting and implementing integrated policies and plans towards inclusion, resource efficiency, mitigation and adaptation to climate change, resilience to disasters, and develop and implement, in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, holistic disaster risk management at all levels.",11.b.1,Number of countries that adopt and implement national disaster risk reduction strategies in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030,UNISDR,,"Local DRR Strategies in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030: local disaster risk reduction strategies and plans, across different timescales with targets, indicators and time frames, aimed at preventing the creation of risk, the reduction of existing risk and the strengthening of economic, social, health and environmental resilience (Sendai Framework, para27 (b)). Note: the DRR strategies need to be based on risk information and assessments. \nLocal Government: Form of public administration at the lowest tier of administration within a given state, which generally acts within powers delegated to them by legislation or directives of the higher level of government. \n\tNote: Terminology will be discussed and finalized in the Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group for Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction.",Summation of data from National Progress Report of the Sendai Monitor,"Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 calls for local governments to adopt and implement local DRR strategies with their own targets, indicators and timeframes. \nGlobal population is now half urban and expected to be nearly 70% urban by 2050. Increasing resilience of cities is critical to reduce disaster risk and achieve sustainable development. Cities are also very vulnerable to natural disasters, especially climate-related shocks. Over half of all coastal areas are urbanized and 21 of the world's 33 megacities lie in coastal flood zones. Coastal cities are particularly affected by sea level rise, coastal flooding and erosion, and extreme events (e.g. tsunamis and storm surges) due to the undermining natural protective barriers, low levels of development combined with rapid population growth in low lying coastal areas and inadequate capacity to adapt. In addition to the impact on communities and non-human species, the unplanned urbanization also undermines the ecosystem services that support much hard urban infrastructure. This type of development also exacerbates urban vulnerability to climate change impacts, including hydro-meteorological and geological hazards. \nLocated mostly in cities where disadvantaged groups are situated and when affordable access is addressed, resilient infrastructures such as health, education, road and other critical infrastructures will have direct impact on reducing inequality and making growth more inclusive and sustainable. \nThe opportunity is that 60% of the area expected to be urban by 2030 remains to be built, indicating that the shape of future cities can be proactively guided into more risk-sensitive development. An increasing number of cities that adopt and implement local DRR strategies will contribute to sustainable development from economic, environmental and social perspectives. \nThe indicator will build bridge between the SDGs and the Sendai Framework for DRR because the adoption of local DRR strategies is one of Sendai Framework global targets and will be also monitored under the Sendai Framework Monitoring System. \n(mainly based on TST Issue Brief 20, 11, 23, 14 and 12)",,,,,,,"National Progress Report of the Sendai Monitor, reported to UNISDR",,,"By country, by city",Summation of data from National Progress Report of the Sendai Monitor,"This is proposal by UNISDR based on our experience and knowledge built in the period under the Hyogo Framework for Action (2005-2015). The proposed indicator was further reviewed and examined by other UN agencies including FAO, GFDRR, IOM, UNCCD, UNDP, UNESCAP, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCR, UNOCHA, UNOOSA, UNOPS, UNU, UNWOMEN, WHO and WMO (though not all organizations listed here provided comments for this indicator) and submitted to the IAEG process in early-July 2015, then again reviewed by the Technical Expert Group consisting of more than 60 experts from UN system, academic and research, civil sector and private sector in 27-29 July 2015 and submitted and examined by the Member States in the 1st Open-ended Intergovernmental Expert Working Group on Indicators and Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction held in 29-30 September 2015. The suggested indicator is currently under review by the Member States and UNISDR is receiving written inputs from the Member States. \nThe proposed indicators will be also used to monitor Sendai Framework global targets and therefore the detailed definitions shall be discussed and agreed in Open-ended Intergovernmental Expert Working Group on Indicators and Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction, as outlined in Sendai Framework for Disaster Reduction 2015-2030. The Working Group is likely to finalize the discussion and submit the final report to the GA in December 2016. \nReporting of the HFA Monitor and the succeeding Sendai Monitor under development is not mandatory but it is only global database collecting DRR policy information. The HFA Monitor started in 2007 and over time, the number of countries reporting to UNISDR increased from 60 in 2007 to 133 in 2013. Because there is no specific data addressing this indicator at this moment, a baseline as of 2015 should be created through a questionnaire to all countries in order to monitor both the Sendai Framework and the SDGs.",,,,Related targets in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030: Substantially increase the number of countries with national and local disaster risk reduction strategies by 2020. \nSendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030: (http://www.preventionweb.net/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf,1.5,3.9,3.d,9.1,11.5,11.b,13.1,13.b,,,,,,14.2,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  11.b,FALSE,11,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-11.pdf,36,"By 2020, substantially increase the number of cities and human settlements adopting and implementing integrated policies and plans towards inclusion, resource efficiency, mitigation and adaptation to climate change, resilience to disasters, and develop and implement, in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, holistic disaster risk management at all levels.",11.b.2,Proportion of local governments that adopt and implement local disaster risk reduction strategies in line with national disaster risk reduction strategies,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  11.c,TRUE,11,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-11.pdf,37,"Support least developed countries, including through financial and technical assistance, in building sustainable and resilient buildings utilizing local materials.",11.c.1,"Proportion of financial support to the least developed countries that is allocated to the construction and retrofitting of sustainable, resilient and resource-efficient buildings utilizing local materials",OECD,,Total net official development assistance (ODA, http://www.oecd.org/dac/dac-glossary.htm#ODA) to the construction (purpose code 32310,http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/purposecodessectorclassification.htm) and urban development and management (code 43030) subsectors in the Least Developed Countries. Data expressed in US dollars at the average annual exchange rate.,,ODA is the accepted measure of international development co-operation. In this case it captures international concessional financing to least developed countries in construction and urban development.,,,,,,,"Data are compiled by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development from returns submitted by its member countries and other aid providers. Data can be accessed here, http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/data.htm.",,,"The data are generally obtained on an activity level, and include numerous parameters. They can thus be disaggregated by provider and recipient country; by type of finance, and by type of resources provided. Some data are also available on the policy objectives targeted by individual projects, including through climate adaptation and mitigation markers, http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/48785310.pdf.","Data are available for essentially all high-income countries, and for an increasing number of middle-income aid providers.","The data only address international concessional flows provided by governments. Detailed, internationally comparable sectoral information on other support building and construction in developing countries is generally lacking.","The data include a ""gender equality"" marker (http://www.oecd.org/investment/stats/37461060.pdf) which identifies individual projects that have a clear gender dimension.",,,"OECD, 2014 Aid to Urban Climate Change Adaptation. http://www.oecd.org/dac/environment-development/Urban%20Adaptation%20Flyer.pdf",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  12.1,FALSE,12,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-12.pdf,2,"Implement the 10-year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production Patterns, all countries taking action, with developed countries taking the lead, taking into account the development and capabilities of developing countries.",12.1.1,Number of countries with sustainable consumption and production (SCP) national action plans or SCP mainstreamed as a priority or a target into national policies,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  12.2,TRUE,12,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-12.pdf,3,"By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources.",12.2.1,"Materijalni otisak, materijalna stopa po stanovniku i materijalni otisak po BDP-u",UNEP,,"Material footprint (MF) is the attribution of global material extraction to domestic final demand of a country. It is calculated as raw material equivalent of imports (RMEIM) plus domestic extraction (DE) minus raw material equivalents of exports (RMEEX). For the attribution of the primary material needs of final demand a global, multi-regional input-output (MRIO) framework is employed. The attribution method based on I-O analytical tools is described in detail in Wiedmann et al. 2015. It is based on the EORA MRIO framework developed by the University of Sydney, Australia (Lenzen et al. 2013) which is an internationally well-established and the most detailed and reliable MRIO framework available to date.","Material footprint of consumption reports the amount of primary materials required to serve final demand of a country and can be interpreted as an indicator for the material standard of living/level of capitalization of an economy. Per-capita MF describes the average material use for final demand. DMC and MF need to be looked at in combination as they cover the two aspects of the economy, production and consumption. The DMC reports the actual amount of material in an economy, MF the virtual amount required across the whole supply chain to service final demand. A country can, for instance have a very high DMC because it has a large primary production sector for export or a very low DMC because it has outsourced most of the material intensive industrial processes to other countries. The material footprint corrects for both phenomena.",,,,,,,,"Data is available from different national or international datasets in the domain of agriculture, forestry, fisheries, mining and energy statistics. International statistical sources for DMC and MF include the IEA, USGS, FAO and COMTRADE databases.",,,"The MF indicator can be disaggregated to four main material categories, a varying number of economic sectors whose expenditure require materials and to three domestic final demand sectors (household consumption, government consumption and capital investment) and foreign final demand (i.e. exports).",,,,,"Material footprint is also referred to as Raw Material Consumption (RMC). The DMC indicator and MF indicator are used by EUROSTAT, the government of Japan, the UNEP Office for Asia and the Pacific and the OECD for monitoring their policy efforts in the domains of Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP), resource Efficiency and Green Economy.","EUROSTAT (2013). Economy-wide material flow accounts. Compilation guide 2013. \nWiedmann, T., H. Schandl, M. Lenzen, D. Moran, S. Suh, J. West, K. Kanemoto, (2013) The Material Footprint of Nations, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. Online before print. \nLenzen, M., Moran, D., Kanemoto, K., Geschke, A. (2013) Building Eora: A Global Multi-regional Input-Output Database at High Country and Sector Resolution, Economic Systems Research, 25:1, 20-49.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  12.2,TRUE,12,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-12.pdf,3,"By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources.",12.2.2,"Domaća potrošnja materijala, domaća potrošnja materijala po stanovniku i domaća potrošnja materijala po BDP-u",UNEP,,Domestic Material Consumption (DMC) is a standard material flow accounting (MFA) indicator and reports the apparent consumption of materials in a national economy. It is calculated as direct imports (IM) of material plus domestic extraction (DE) of materials minus direct exports (EX) of materials measured in metric tonnes. DMC measures the amount of materials that are used in economic processes. It does not include materials that are mobilized the process of domestic extraction but do not enter the economic process. DMC is based on official economic statistics and it requires some modelling to adapt the source data to the methodological requirements of the MFA. The accounting standard and accounting methods are set out in the EUROSTAT guidebooks for MFA accounts in the latest edition of 2013. MFA accounting is also part of the central framework of the System of integrated EnvironmentalEconomic Accounts (SEEA).,"DMC reports the amount of materials that are used that are used in a national economy. DMC is a territorial (production side) indicator. DMC also presents the amount of material that needs to be handled within an economy, which is either added to material stocks of buildings and transport infrastructure or used to fuel the economy as material throughput. DMC describes the physical dimension of economic processes and interactions. It can also be interpreted as long-term waste equivalent. Per-capita DMC describes the average level of material use in an economy ' an environmental pressure indicator - and is also referred to as metabolic profile.",,,,,,,,"Data is available from different national or international datasets in the domain of agriculture, forestry, fisheries, mining and energy statistics. International statistical sources for DMC and MF include the IEA, USGS, FAO and COMTRADE databases.",,,"The DMC indicator can be disaggregated into imports, domestic extraction and exports by a large number of material follow categories. At the highest level of aggregation biomass, fossil fuels, metal ores and non-metallic minerals are distinguished. DMC is usually reported for 11 material categories, DE for 44 material categories.","UNEP is publishing a global material flow dataset which includes the DMC indicator. DMC is available for about 180 countries, the seven UNEP world regions and the world for the time period 1970 ' 2010. Data is available at the UNEP online data platform UNEP Live www.uneplive.unep.org on each country page in the section 'UNEP resources' under the category 'natural resources'.",DMC cannot be disaggregated to economic sectors which limits its potential to become a satellite account to the System of National Accounts (SNA).,,,"Material footprint is also referred to as Raw Material Consumption (RMC). The DMC indicator and MF indicator are used by EUROSTAT, the government of Japan, the UNEP Office for Asia and the Pacific and the OECD for monitoring their policy efforts in the domains of Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP), resource Efficiency and Green Economy.","EUROSTAT (2013). Economy-wide material flow accounts. Compilation guide 2013. \nWiedmann, T., H. Schandl, M. Lenzen, D. Moran, S. Suh, J. West, K. Kanemoto, (2013) The Material Footprint of Nations, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. Online before print. \nLenzen, M., Moran, D., Kanemoto, K., Geschke, A. (2013) Building Eora: A Global Multi-regional Input-Output Database at High Country and Sector Resolution, Economic Systems Research, 25:1, 20-49.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  12.3,TRUE,12,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-12.pdf,5,"By 2030, halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses.",12.3.1,Globalni indeks gubitka hrane,FAO,,"The indicator measures the totality of losses occurring from the time at which production of an agricultural product is recorded until it reaches the final consumer as food. \nWhile calculated on a quantity basis, it is subsequently transformed to dietary energy supplies (in kcal) per capita allowing consistent aggregation and then indexed. \nThe indicator will be calculated on an annual frequency broken down by country and commodity.",,,,,"The indicator provides evidence on most aspects of the object of the SDG target above. However, in contrast to the objective of the SDG target, it does not take into account losses occurring at the consumer level. Specifically, it provides evidence on the amount which is lost from the food available to private households, rather than from the food actually consumed by them. \nTherefore, the indicator is sensitive, for example, to enhancements in supply-chain infrastructure, while it is insensitive to changes in the private households' efforts to use food more efficiently or to their equipment with refrigerators.","The indicator has been developed and compiled, but further testing and validation is required before public release. \nThe costs of measuring losses directly and regularly, for example in surveys, are prohibitive. Therefore, the indicator is primarily model-based. It will be compiled on a regular basis as part of the Food Balance Sheets in FAOSTAT. \nThe calculation of the indicator relies on primary data collected from government agencies in the Agricultural Production Questionnaire or harvested from official publications and other sources. The model parameters are retrieved from the World Development Indicators database of the World Bank. \nThe coverage with primary data is lowest in Sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa and the Middle East. For sugar crops, tree nuts and milk the data are more difficult to obtain than for other types of commodities. \nThe accuracy of the estimates could be improved by investments into the statistical capacities for the assessment of losses at national level, probably in the scope of the Global Strategy, as well as into work on further improvements of the model.","Reliability \nThe accuracy of the indicator is difficult to assess, as the measurement error of the primary data collected from countries, which adds to the error made in the estimation by the model, cannot be quantified. Our preliminary comparison of predicted and observed losses makes us confident that our estimates are not systematically biased. \nCoverage The indicator can be compiled annually for the 177 countries for which Food Balance Sheets are produced. \nComparability \nThe indicator will be calculated on the basis of a standard definition and common methodology for each country in each year. However, the accuracy of the estimates will vary across countries as a result of differences in the availability and quality of the source data. \nSub-national estimates \nSub-national estimates will not be available.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  12.4,FALSE,12,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-12.pdf,7,"By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle, in accordance with agreed international frameworks, and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment.",12.4.1,"Broj stranaka u međunarodnim multilateralnim sporazumima o okolišu o opasnom otpadu i ostalim kemikalijama koje ispunjavaju svoje obveze i obveze u prijenosu podataka, kako to zahtijeva svaki relevantni sporazum",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  12.4,FALSE,12,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-12.pdf,7,"By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle, in accordance with agreed international frameworks, and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment.",12.4.2,Opasni otpad koji nastaje po stanovniku i udio opasnog otpada tretiranog prema vrsti tretmana,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  12.5,FALSE,12,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-12.pdf,8,"By 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse.",12.5.1,"Nacionalna stopa recikliranja, tona recikliranog materijala",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  12.6,FALSE,12,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-12.pdf,9,"Encourage companies, especially large and transnational companies, to adopt sustainable practices and to integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle.",12.6.1,Number of companies publishing sustainability reports,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  12.7,FALSE,12,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-12.pdf,10,"Promote public procurement practices that are sustainable, in accordance with national policies and priorities.",12.7.1,Number of countries implementing sustainable public procurement policies and action plans,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  12.8,FALSE,12,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-12.pdf,11,"By 2030, ensure that people everywhere have the relevant information and awareness for sustainable development and lifestyles in harmony with nature.",12.8.1,Extent to which (i) global citizenship education and (ii) education for sustainable development (including climate change education) are mainstreamed in (a) national education policies (b) curricula  (c) teacher education and (d) student assessment,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  12.a,FALSE,12,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-12.pdf,12,Support developing countries to strengthen their scientific and technological capacity to move towards more sustainable patterns of consumption and production.,12.a.1,Iznos potpore zemljama u razvoju na istraživanje i razvoj za održivu potrošnju i proizvodnju i ekološki prihvatljive tehnologije,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  12.b,TRUE,12,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-12.pdf,13,Develop and implement tools to monitor sustainable development impacts for sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products.,12.b.1,Broj strategija ili politika održivog turizma i provedenih akcijskih planova s uspostavljenim alatima za praćenje i evaluaciju,UNWTO,,The indicator currently lacks a methodological framework but it is expected that it should be rooted in some form of linked tourism and environmental accounts (TSA-SEEA).,To be defined,"The target has several dimensions. The suggested indicator focuses on the dimension: ""sustainable development impacts for sustainable tourism"".",,,,,,,Expected to be sourced from some form of linked SEEA-TSA accounts.,,,"To be defined. It is expected that sub-national information is key. If based on and sourced from an accounting structure, information by tourism industries could be possible (as these industries' productive activity make up Tourism Direct GDP).",,"While it is understood that the indicator is an attempt at presenting an indicator that could approximate for the ""sustainable development impacts for sustainable tourism"", the indicator poses important challenges. \nFirst, there is no conceptual framework that specifically caters to links between tourism and environmental accounts to base this indicator on. The framework for measuring tourism exists (International Recommendations for Tourism Statistics 2008 and Tourism Satellite Account: Recommended Methodological Framework 2008) as well as the framework for environmental-economic accounts (System of Environmental Economic Accounts 2012), but a linking of the two is required. Even though this is something that UNWTO will embark on together with a number countries, UNSD, and OECD and counting on the support of the UNCEEA, the production of internationally comparable data on (something that could approximate for) ""sustainable tourism"" in a significant number of countries still has some years to go. \nData availability is the second biggest challenge, even if a conceptual framework gets developed. While UNWTO is aware of a number of countries that have developed pilot exercises of linking tourism and environmental accounts to produce data for indicators relating key environmental aggregates (notably energy use, GHG emissions, and their intensities) to tourism activity, this is far from being an endeavour that, presently, more than a handful of countries could provide data on, let alone structurally incorporate it into their programmes of work over the medium term. \nThere is the added challenge that the concept of ""sustainable tourism"" as stated in the target is mainly a policy construct and not defined nor part of an established or internationally conceptual/statistical framework at this point. \nIf this indicator is kept it is proposed that, for the time being, it be interpreted in its broadest sense to consider as residuals not only solid waste but also emissions to air and water and wastewater. This would give some flexibility to, after analysis and testing, ultimately opt for the residual(s) that can best cater to the information need for this target. An example of one such candidates could be: \n\tGHG emissions related to tourism: possibly defined as ""GHG emissions from the tourism industries""or a more ambitious ""Direct GHG emissions from (selected) tourism industries"" or possibly even ""Direct GHG emissions intensity for tourism in terms of terms of number of (FTE) jobs"" (which would unite several dimensions relevant to the target). \nIf testing shows that the indicator cannot be viably produced in a significant number of countries, other possible indicators relating tourism and the environment that could be sourced from linked SEEA-TSA accounts should be considered. A possibility could be to shift the focus away from residuals and towards SEEA accounts with wider (and more detailed) data availability. A priori a possibility to be considered could be: \n\tEnergy use related to tourism: possibly defined as ""energy use in the tourism industries"" or a more ambitious ""Direct energy use in (selected) tourism industries"" or possibly even ""Direct energy use intensity for tourism in terms of terms of number of FTE jobs"" (which would unite several dimensions relevant to the target). \nLast but certainly not least, it could be argued that the focus of the target is on ""Develop and implement tools to monitor [sustainable development impacts for sustainable tourism ']"". \nIndeed, the Target itself acknowledges that ""tools to monitor [sustainable development impacts for sustainable tourism]"" need to be developed. If this is considered to be the main focus, then an indicator that tracks precisely this in countries would be more appropriate: \n\t""Stage of implementation of linked SEEA-TSA accounts in country"" or, alternatively, ""Stage of implementation of TSA in country""\nAn advantage of such an indicator is that it could be a powerful motivator to further the necessary statistical development in countries in order to better understand also the other dimensions of the target: ""sustainable development impacts for sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products"". An indicator focusing on developing the tools to monitor tourism in relation to sustainability also matches better the incipient stage of statistical development in this area (both conceptually and regarding implementation in countries).",,,System of Environmental Economic Accounts 2012 (SEEA 2012) \nTourism Satellite Account: Recommended Methodological Framework (TSA: RMF 2008),,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  12.c,FALSE,12,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-12.pdf,15,"Rationalize inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption by removing market distortions, in accordance with national circumstances, including by restructuring taxation and phasing out those harmful subsidies, where they exist, to reflect their environmental impacts, taking fully into account the specific needs and conditions of developing countries and minimizing the possible adverse impacts on their development in a manner that protects the poor and the affected communities.",12.c.1,Amount of fossil-fuel subsidies per unit of GDP (production and consumption) and as proportion of total national expenditure on fossil fuels,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  13.1,TRUE,13,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-13.pdf,2,Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries.,13.1.1,"Number of deaths, missing persons and directly affected persons attributed to disasters per 100,000 population",UNISDR,,"National DRR strategies in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030: national disaster risk reduction strategies and plans, across different timescales with targets, indicators and time frames, aimed at preventing the creation of risk, the reduction of existing risk and the strengthening of economic, social, health and environmental resilience (Sendai Framework, para 27(b)). In the Sendai Framework, link with DRR and climate change adaptation is strongly advocated. Note: the DRR strategies need to be based on risk information and assessments. \nCountry: A nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory \n\tNote: Terminology will be discussed and finalized in the Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group for Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction.",Summation of data from National Progress Report of the Sendai Monitor,"The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2013 calls for national governments to adopt and implement national DRR strategies with their own targets, indicators and timeframes. \nImpacts of climate change on sustainable development are observed through both slow-onset events (e.g. sea level rise, increasing temperatures, ocean acidification, glacial retreat and related impacts, salinization, land and forest degradation, loss of biodiversity and desertification) and extreme weather events. \nCities around the world, as well as rural populations, witness growing disaster risks. Impacts of climate change on sustainable development are observed through both slow-onset events (e.g. sea level rise, increasing temperatures, ocean acidification, glacial retreat and related impacts, salinization, land and forest degradation, loss of biodiversity and desertification) and extreme weather events. \nCities are some of the most vulnerable areas to natural disasters. Unplanned urban development (e.g. informal settlements, overcrowding, inadequate infrastructures) exacerbates urban vulnerability to climate change impacts and hydro-meteorological and geological hazards. Over half of all coastal areas are urbanized and 21 of the world's 33 mega cities lie in coastal flood zones. SIDS and coastal regions are particularly affected by sea level rise, coastal flooding and erosion, and extreme events (e.g. tsunamis and storm surges) due to the undermining natural protective barriers, low levels of development combined with rapid population growth in low lying coastal areas and inadequate capacity to adapt. Poor urban populations must often resort to unsustainable coping strategies and mechanisms. \nLarge numbers of people remain perilously close to falling into poverty, experiencing shocks that they are unable to cope with. For the poor, a shock of even a relatively short impact and duration can have long term consequences. Several dimensions of poverty are closely related to environment, which is often affected by natural disasters. Better management of natural resources can themselves strengthen the resilience of the poor, by both reducing the likelihood of natural hazard events and offering resources to help cope with them. \nThese challenges require enhanced vulnerability and impact assessments, mitigation and adaptation plans, resilience building and DRR strategies. It is necessary to adapt to climate change, enhance resilience of ecosystems, and reduce disaster risk and build resilience to natural disasters. \nProactive DRR strategies will address climate change impact and enhance resilience of nations. Resilient infrastructures will be critical part of such strategies because infrastructures such as health, education, road and other critical infrastructures will have direct impact on reducing inequality and making growth more inclusive. \nIncreasing number of national governments that adopt and implement national DRR strategies will contribute to sustainable development from economic, environmental and social perspectives. \nThe indicator will build bridge between the SDGs and the Sendai Framework for DRR because the adoption of national DRR strategies is one of Sendai Framework targets and will be also monitored under the Sendai Framework Monitoring System. \n(mainly based on TST Issue Brief 23, 12 and 20)",,,,,,,"National Progress Report of the Sendai Monitor, reported to UNISDR",,,By country,Summation of data from National Progress Report of the Sendai Monitor,"This is proposal by UNISDR based on our experience and knowledge built in the period under the Hyogo Framework for Action (2005-2015). The proposed indicator was further reviewed and examined by other UN agencies including FAO, GFDRR, IOM, UNCCD, UNDP, UNESCAP, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCR, UNOCHA, UNOOSA, UNOPS, UNU, UNWOMEN, WHO and WMO (though not all organizations listed here provided comments for this indicator) and submitted to the IAEG process in early-July 2015, then again reviewed by the Technical Expert Group consisting of more than 60 experts from UN system, academic and research, civil sector and private sector in 27-29 July 2015 and submitted and examined by the Member States in the 1st Open-ended Intergovernmental Expert Working Group on Indicators and Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction held in 29-30 September 2015. The suggested indicator is currently under review by the Member States and UNISDR is receiving written inputs from the Member States. \nThe proposed indicators will be also used to monitor Sendai Framework global targets and therefore the detailed definitions shall be discussed and agreed in Open-ended Intergovernmental Expert Working Group on Indicators and Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction, as outlined in Sendai Framework for Disaster Reduction 2015-2030. The Working Group is likely to finalize the discussion and submit the final report to the GA in December 2016. \nReporting of the HFA Monitor and the succeeding Sendai Monitor under development is not mandatory but it is only global database collecting DRR policy information. The HFA Monitor started in 2007 and over time, the number of countries reporting to UNISDR increased from 60 in 2007 to 133 in 2013. Because there is no specific data addressing this indicator at this moment, a baseline as of 2015 should be created through a questionnaire to all countries in order to monitor both the Sendai Framework and the SDGs.",,,Related targets in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030: \n\tSubstantially increase the number of countries with national and local disaster risk reduction strategies by 2020. \nSendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030: (http://www.preventionweb.net/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf,,1.5,3.9,3.d,9.1,11.5,13.1,13.2,13.b,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  13.1,TRUE,13,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-13.pdf,6,Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries.,13.1.2,Number of countries that adopt and implement national disaster risk reduction strategies in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030,UNISDR,,"Death: The number of people who died during the disaster, or directly after, as a direct result of the hazardous event \nMissing: The number of people whose whereabouts is unknown since the hazardous event. It includes people who are presumed dead although there is no physical evidence. The data on number of deaths and number of missing are mutually exclusive. \nAffected people: People who are affected by a hazardous event. \nComment: People can be affected directly or indirectly. Affected people may experience short-term or long-term consequences to their lives, livelihoods or health and in the economic, physical, social, cultural and environmental assets. \nDirectly affected: People who have suffered injury, illness or other health effects; who were evacuated, displaced, relocated; or have suffered direct damage to their livelihoods, economic, physical, social, cultural and environmental assets. \nIndirectly affected: People who have suffered consequences, other than or in addition to direct effects, over time due to disruption or changes in economy, critical infrastructures, basic services, commerce, work or social, health and physiological consequences. \nIn this indicator, given the difficulties in assessing the full range of all affected (directly and indirectly), UNISDR proposes the use of an indicator that would estimate ""directly affected"" as a proxy for the number of affected. This indicator, while not perfect, comes from data widely available and could be used consistently across countries and over time to measure the achievement of the Target B. \nFrom the perspective of data availability and measurability, it is proposed to build a composite indicator which consists of ""directly affected"", or those who are \n\tInjured or ill, \n\tEvacuated, \n\tRelocated \nand to measure the number who suffered direct damage to their livelihoods or assets, \n\tPeople whose houses were damaged or destroyed \n\tPeople who received food relief aid. \nInjured or ill: The number of people suffering from physical injuries, trauma or cases of disease requiring immediate medical assistance as a direct result of a hazardous event. \nEvacuated: The number of people who temporarily moved from where they were (including their place of residence, work places, schools and hospitals) to safer locations in order to ensure their safety. \nRelocated: The number of people who moved permanently from their homes to new sites due to hazardous event. Note: This definition excludes preventive relocation before the event. \nPeople whose houses were damaged or destroyed due to hazardous events: The estimated number of inhabitants previously living in the houses (housing units) damaged or destroyed. All the inhabitants of these houses (housing units) are assumed to be affected being in their dwelling or by direct consequence of the destruction/damage to their housings (housing units). An average number of inhabitants per house (housing unit) in the country can be used to estimate the value. \nHouses destroyed: Houses (housing units) levelled, buried, collapsed, washed away or damaged to the extent that they are no longer habitable. \nHouses damaged: Houses (housing units) with minor damage, not structural or architectural, which may continue to be habitable, although they may require some repair or cleaning. \nPeople who received food relief aid: The number of persons who received food /nutrition, by government or as humanitarian aid, during or in the aftermath of a hazardous event. \nHazardous event: The occurrence of a natural or human-induced phenomenon in a particular place during a particular period of time due to the existence of a hazard. \nHazard: A potentially damaging physical event, phenomenon or human activity that may cause the loss of life or injury, property damage, social and economic disruption or environmental degradation. \nUNISDR recommends setting NO threshold for recording hazardous event in order to monitor all hazardous events. Small-scale but frequent hazardous events that are not registered in international disaster loss databases account for an important share of damages and losses when they are combined, and often go unnoticed by the national and international community. These events, when accumulated, are often a source of poverty in developing countries but can be effectively addressed by well-designed policies. The scope of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 is ""the risk of small-scale and large-scale, frequent and infrequent, sudden and slow-onset disasters, caused by natural or man-made hazards as well as relate environmental, technological and biological hazards and risks"". \nRegarding the inclusion of biological and environmental hazards in natural hazards category and whether and how to integrate man-made hazards, UNISDR will discuss the issue with WHO and other organizations (for example, WHO would be in a better position in terms of data, knowledge and relationship with Member States and other stakeholders to monitor biological events including epidemics. However, we generally do not expect biological disasters will cause physical damages to facilities. ). \n\tNote: Terminology will be discussed and finalized in the Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group for Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reductio","Summation of data on related indicators from national disaster loss databases. Make the sum a relative figure by using global population data (World Bank or UN Statistics information). Relativity is important because population growth (expected to be 9 billion in 2050) may translate into increased hazard exposure of population. \nThe Expert Group recommends not using the indicators related with the people whose houses were damaged/destroyed in the computation. UNISDR and IRDR groups recommend using them as they can be estimated from widely available and verifiable data and reflect vulnerability and livelihood issues. Data on housing damage and destroyed is essential for economic loss, so using these indicators would not impose additional data collection burden. \nDouble-counting: From practical perspective, double counting of affected people is unavoidable (for example, injured and relocated) in many countries. Minimum double counting is summing ""number of injured"" and Number of people whose housings were damaged or destroyed. Relocated is sub-set of number of people whose housings were destroyed. \nThe data can be disaggregated by hazard type. When applied to proposed target 13.1 and 15.3, hydrological, meteorological and climatological and indirectly biological disasters are monitored.","Cities around the world, as well as rural populations, witness growing disaster risks. Impacts of climate change on sustainable development are observed through both slow-onset events (e.g. sea level rise, increasing temperatures, ocean acidification, glacial retreat and related impacts, salinization, land and forest degradation, loss of biodiversity and desertification) and extreme weather events. Human loss can be measured by the number of deaths, missing, injured or ill, evacuated, relocated, people whose houses were damaged/destroyed and people who received food relief aid as a direct result of the hazardous events. \nCities are some of the most vulnerable areas to natural disasters. Unplanned urban development (e.g. informal settlements, overcrowding, inadequate infrastructures) exacerbates urban vulnerability to climate change impacts and hydro-meteorological and geological hazards. Over half of all coastal areas are urbanized and 21 of the world's 33 mega cities lie in coastal flood zones. SIDS and coastal regions are particularly affected by sea level rise, coastal flooding and erosion, and extreme events (e.g. tsunamis and storm surges) due to undermining natural protective barriers, low levels of development combined with rapid population growth in low lying coastal areas and inadequate capacity to adapt. Poor urban populations must often resort to unsustainable coping strategies and mechanisms. \nLarge numbers of people remain perilously close to falling into poverty, experiencing shocks that they are unable to cope with. For the poor, a shock of even a relatively short duration can have long term consequences. Several dimensions of poverty are closely related to environment, which is often affected by natural disasters. The poverty reduction agenda could include well-designed social protection scheme to help protecting the poor against sudden shocks and the development of capacities to better predict and prepare for such shocks. Better management of natural resources can themselves strengthen the resilience of the poor, by both reducing the likelihood of natural hazardous events and offering resources to help cope with them. \nBiodiversity provides ecosystem resilience and contributes to the ability to respond to unpredictable global changes and natural disasters. Healthy ecosystems act as buffers against natural hazards, providing valuable yet underutilized approaches for climate change adaptation, enhancing natural resilience and reducing the vulnerability of people, for example to floods and the effects of land degradation. These ecosystem services improve the sustainability and economic efficiency of built infrastructure, and are critical for sustainable and resilient urban areas. \nThis indicator will track human-related loss. The disaster loss data (particularly mortality) are significantly influenced by large-scale catastrophic event, which represent important outliers. UNISDR recommends countries to report the data by event, so complementary analysis can be done by both including and excluding such catastrophic events. \nThe indicator will build bridge between SDGs and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction because the reduction of human related loss is included in the Sendai Framework global targets and will also be monitored under the Sendai Framework Monitoring Mechanism. (mainly based on TST Issue Brief 2, 5, 20 and 23-26)",,,,,,,"National disaster loss database, reported to UNISDR",,,"By country, by event, by hazard type (e.g. disaggregation by climatological, hydrological, meteorological, geophysical, biological and extra-terrestrial for natural hazards is possible following IRDR* classification), by death/missing/injured or ill/evacuated/relocated/people whose houses were damaged/people whose houses were destroyed/people who received food relief aid. \n\t*Integrated Research on Disaster Risk (2014), Peril Classification and Hazard Glossary (IRDR DATA Publication No.1), Beijing: Integrated Research on Disaster Risk \nAdditionally, the Expert Group recommended disaggregation by age, sex, location of residence and other characteristics (e.g. disability) as relevant and possible. Aggregation of 'location of residence': ideally by subnational administrative unit similar to municipality.",Summation of data from national disaster loss databases,"This is proposal by UNISDR based on our experience and knowledge built in the period under the Hyogo Framework for Action (2005-2015). The proposed indicator was further reviewed and examined by other UN agencies including FAO, GFDRR, IOM, UNCCD, UNDP, UNESCAP, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCR, UNOCHA, UNOOSA, UNOPS, UNU, UNWOMEN, WHO and WMO (though not all organizations listed here provided comments for this indicator) and submitted to the IAEG process in early-July 2015, then again reviewed by the Technical Expert Group consisting of more than 60 experts from UN system, academic and research, civil sector and private sector in 27-29 July 2015 and submitted and examined by the Member States in the 1st Open-ended Intergovernmental Expert Working Group on Indicators and Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction held in 29-30 September 2015. The suggested indicator is currently under review by the Member States and UNISDR is receiving written inputs from the Member States. \nThe proposed indicators will be also used to monitor Sendai Framework global targets and therefore the detailed definitions shall be discussed and agreed in Open-ended Intergovernmental Expert Working Group on Indicators and Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction, as outlined in Sendai Framework for Disaster Reduction 2015-2030. The Working Group is likely to finalize the discussion and submit the final report to the GA in December 2016. \nNot every country has a comparable national disaster loss database that is consistent with the UNISDR guidelines (current coverage is 85 countries. Additional 32 countries are expected to be covered in 2015- 16). Therefore, by 2020, it is expected that all countries will build/adjust the database according to the UNISDR guidelines and report the data to UNISDR.",Disaggregated by gender (if agreed by country in the Open-ended Intergovernmental Expert Working Group),,"Related targets in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030: \n\tSubstantially reduce global disaster mortality by 2030, aiming to lower average per 100,000 global mortality between 2020-2030 compared to 2005-2015. \n\tSubstantially reduce the number of affected people globally by 2030, aiming to lower the average global figure per 100,000 between 2020-2030 compared to 2005-2015. \nSendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030: \n(http://www.preventionweb.net/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf)",,1.3,1.5,3.6,3.9,3.d,11.5,13.1,14.2,,,,,,15.3,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  13.1,FALSE,13,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-13.pdf,6,Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries.,13.1.3,Proportion of local governments that adopt and implement local disaster risk reduction strategies in line with national disaster risk reduction strategies,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  13.2,FALSE,13,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-13.pdf,11,"Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.",13.2.1,"Number of countries that have communicated the establishment or operationalization of an integrated policy/strategy/plan which increases their ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change, and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development in a manner that does not threaten food production (including a national adaptation plan, nationally determined contribution, national communication, biennial update report or other)",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  13.3,FALSE,13,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-13.pdf,12,"Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning.",13.3.1,"Number of countries that have integrated mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning into primary, secondary and tertiary curricula",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  13.3,FALSE,13,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-13.pdf,12,"Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning.",13.3.2,"Number of countries that have communicated the strengthening of institutional, systemic and individual capacity-building to implement adaptation, mitigation and technology transfer, and development actions",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  13.a,FALSE,13,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-13.pdf,13,Implement the commitment undertaken by developed-country parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to a goal of mobilizing jointly $100 billion annually by 2020 from all sources to address the needs of developing countries in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation and fully operationalize the Green Climate Fund through its capitalization as soon as possible.,13.a.1,Mobilized amount of United States dollars per year between 2020 and 2025 accountable towards the $100 billion commitment,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  13.b,TRUE,13,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-13.pdf,14,"Promote mechanisms for raising capacity for effective climate change-related planning and management in least developed countries and small island developing States, including focusing on women, youth and local and marginalized communities.",13.b.1,"Number of least developed countries and small island developing States that are receiving specialized support, and amount of support, including finance, technology and capacity-building, for mechanisms for raising capacities for effective climate change-related planning and management, including focusing on women, youth and local and marginalized communities",WMO,,"Number of LDCs that are receiving specialized support for raising capacities for effective climate change related planning and management, including focusing on women, youth, local and marginalized communities",,"As the effects of climate change are becoming more evident and acute, the need for effective climate services is greater than ever before. Climate services underpin climate action and achieving SDGs. Nevertheless, the GFCS High level Task Force had identified 70 countries that do not yet have sufficient capacities to develop and use climate services. This is a major focus of the GFCS. This indicator contributes and supports the achievement of several targets such as 1.5, 2.1, 6.1, 6.4, 6.5, 7.1, 9.1, 11.3, 11.5, 12.8, 13.1, 13.2, 14.2, 15.3.",,,,,,,"GFCS has developed a web-based platform to allow Member countries and Partners to report and designate activities currently being implemented related to climate services, including activities for raising capacities of LDCs for effective climate change planning and management. To access the platform, Members and Partners were requested to nominate a focal point who would receive the credentials to upload the information on the platform. So far more than 45 focal points were designated by Member countries and Partners. These focal points are providing data that is being used to populate a data base of projects that is being displayed on the GFCS website.",,,,"Number of LDCs receiving support for raising capacities of LDCs for effective climate change planning and management. \nProject information (focus country, timeframe, objectives, description, benefits, activities, deliverables, sectors, partners etc.).",,,,,http://www.wmo.int/gfcs/ \nhttp://www.wmo.int/gfcs/projects-map \nhttp://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/wmo_1065_en.pdf,1.5,2.1,6.1,6.4,6.5,7.1,9.1,11.3,,,,,,11.5,12.8,13.1,13.2,14.2,15.3,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  14.1,TRUE,14,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-14.pdf,2,"By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution.",14.1.1,Indeks obalne eutrofikacije i plutajuće plastične gustoće otpada,UNEP,,Index of Coastal Eutrophication (ICEP) \nFloating Plastic Debris (Particles/Km2),,"UNEP is available to assist operationalizing these proposed indicators through the Global Nutrient Partnership and Marine Litter Partnership working with IOC, GESAMP, others etc. The earlier proposed indicator on Nitrogen Use Efficiency is to some extend embedded with the broader Index of Coastal Eutrophication (ICEP). \nMoreover, 18 Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans are currently working to develop a core set of common indicators to be used across regional seas for routing monitoring and reporting on the status of the marine environment. Several proposed indicators are relevant to 14.1, for example: (a) Chlorophyll a concentration as an indicator of phytoplankton biomass; (b) Locat'ons and frequency of algal blooms reported (c) Trends for selected priority chemicals 'nclud'ng POPs and heavy metals; (d) Quantification and class'f'cat'on of beach litter items, as well as indicators related to management of marine pollution and debris.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"This coordinated effort across Regional Seas, which builds on several already existing indicators and monitoring efforts can support delivery and monitoring of 14.1. Further details are at: http://www.unep.org/ecosystemmanagement/water/regionalseas40/Meetings/RegionalSeasIndicatorsWorkingGr oup/tabid/1060470/Default.aspx",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  14.2,TRUE,14,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-14.pdf,3,"By 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts, including by strengthening their resilience, and take action for their restoration in order to achieve healthy and productive oceans.",14.2.1,Udio nacionalnih isključivih gospodarskih zona upravljati pomoću ekosustav pristupa,UNEP,,"While requiring some further development for practical implementation, the indicator is similar to UNEP indicators to monitor progress on marine and coastal EBM under its biannual programme of work. UNEP, IOC and FAO are available to support countries in operationalizing the indicator. Linkages can be explored with IUCN's 'Green List' and the 'Ocean Health Index'. A technical working group to finalise the details could be supported by UNEP, IOC, FAO winter/spring 2016.",,"Moreover, 18 Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans are currently working to develop a core set of common indicators to be used across regional seas for routing monitoring and reporting on the status of the marine environment. Several proposed indicators are relevant to 14.2, for example: (a) National ICZM guidelines and enabling legislation adopted; (b) Number of existing national and local coastal and marine plans incorporating climate change adaptation; (c) % national adaptation plans in place; (d) Fisheries measures in place (by-catch limits, area-based closures, recovery plans, capacity reduction measures); (e) Trends in critical habitat extent and condition; (f) Population pressure/urbanization: Length of coastal modification and km2 of coastal reclamation.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"This coordinated effort across Regional Seas, which builds on several already existing indicators and monitoring efforts can support delivery and monitoring of 14.2. Further details are at: http://www.unep.org/ecosystemmanagement/water/regionalseas40/Meetings/RegionalSeasIndicators WorkingGroup/tabid/1060470/Default.aspx",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  14.3,FALSE,14,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-14.pdf,4,"Minimize and address the impacts of ocean acidification, including through enhanced scientific cooperation at all levels.",14.3.1,Prosječna morska kiselost (pH) mjereno na dogovorenom paketu uzimanja reprezentativnog uzorka stanica,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  
negative.code: 14.a,FALSE,14,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-14.pdf,19,"Increase scientific knowledge, develop research capacity and transfer marine technology, taking into account the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission Criteria and Guidelines on the Transfer of Marine Technology, in order to improve ocean health and to enhance the contribution of marine biodiversity to the development of developing countries, in particular small Island developing States and least developed countries.",14.a.1,Udio ukupnog proračuna za istraživanje koji se dodjeljuje istraživanju u području pomorske tehnologije,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  14.b,TRUE,14,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-14.pdf,20,Provide access for small-scale artisanal fishers to marine resources and markets.,14.b.1,Napredak zemalja prema stupnju primjene zakonskog / regulatornog / političkog / institucionalnog okvira koji prepoznaje i štiti prava pristupa malom ribolovu,FAO,,"The indicator is formulated as Progress by countries in adopting and implementing a legal/regulatory/policy/institutional framework which recognizes and protects access rights for small-scale fisheries. This indicator measures the ""access rights"" aspect of the target. \nIt is a composite indicator based on FAO member country responses to the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF) survey questionnaire6 which is circulated by FAO every two years to members and IGOs and INGOs. This indicator is calculated on the basis of the efforts being made by countries to implement selected key provisions of the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication (SSF Guidelines;), as reported in a given year of the survey. \nIndicator variables \n\t1. Existence of instruments that specifically target or address the small-scale fisheries sector \n\t2. Ongoing specific initiatives to implement the SSF Guidelines \n\t3. Existence of mechanisms enabling small-scale fishers and fish workers to contribute to decision-making processes \nIndicator calculation \nThe weight given to each of the variables in calculating the indicator value for each country are as follows: \n\tVariable 1 ' 40% \n\tVariable 2 ' 30% \n\tVariable 3 ' 30% \nScoring \nThe indicator variables are based on three questions which are part of the set of questions on small-scale fisheries in the biannual CCRF questionnaire survey (as reproduced in the Annex). The unit of measurement of the indicator is a score on a scale of 0 to 1, computed through scores and weights assigned to the three questions. The national indicator is calculated based on these questions specifically focusing on actual efforts of promoting and facilitating access rights to small scale fisheries. Responses termed ""no"" in all three questions will result in a ""zero"" score for the composite indicator. Maximum score will be achieved if all questions are answered ""yes"". As this indicator would be reported in the biannual CCRF survey, difference in score as compared to the preceding year of the previous survey response will reflect the progress made during the survey periods.",,,,,"Due to the diverse nature of small-scale fisheries in different countries, there is no globally agreed definition for small-scale fisheries, which became also evident during the development process of the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication (SSF Guidelines;http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4356e.pdf) recently endorsed by the FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI). \nAccordingly, paragraph 2.4 of this new international instrument which complements the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF) states that 'These Guidelines recognize the great diversity of small-scale fisheries and that there is no single, agreed definition of the subsector. Accordingly, the Guidelines do not prescribe a standard definition of small-scale fisheries nor do they prescribe how the Guidelines should be applied in a national context. These Guidelines are especially relevant to subsistence small-scale fisheries and vulnerable fisheries people. To ensure transparency and accountability in the application of the Guidelines, it is important to ascertain which activities and operators are considered small-scale, and to identify vulnerable and marginalized groups needing greater attention. This should be undertaken at a regional, sub-regional or national level and according to the particular context in which they are to be applied. States should ensure that such identification and application are guided by meaningful and substantive participatory, consultative, multilevel and objectiveoriented processes so that the voices of both men and women are heard. All parties should support and participate, as appropriate and relevant, in such processes.'\nThe target is focusing on access to resources and markets for small-scale fisheries, in line with the Rio+20 outcome document (http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/476/10/PDF/N1147610.pdf?OpenElement) para, 175. In order to guarantee secure access, an enabling environment is necessary which recognizes and protects small-scale fisheries rights. Such an enabling environment requires appropriate legal, regulatory and policy frameworks and related institutional mechanisms as well their effective application.","There is currently no such indicator but the biennial FAO survey questionnaire on the CCRF implementation will include new questions in relation to small-scale fisheries and the implementation of the SSF Guidelines. The first results will become available for COFI in 2016, allowing for the definition of a baseline and starting period for this indicator. COFI 2016 can provide an opportunity to sharpen the questions if needed. In addition, there will be a specific COFI agenda item on small-scale fisheries. Data could therefore be produced at country level every two years for COFI through the electronic questionnaire.","Reliability \nFAO Member Countries are invited every two years to respond to the FAO CCRF Survey and responses are reviewed and compiled and presented by FAO to COFI. This provides a high level ofreliability and comprehensiveness of the global information and data set which will enjoy significant and growing political recognition among FAO's Member Countries and the general public. \nCoverage \nThe proposed indicator on would be global, covering all FAO members. \nComparability across countries \nIt would be possible to compare across countries and regions. \nSub-national estimates \nCurrently not available","As indicated, the proposed indicator is new, and will be integrated in the next CCRF survey which should provide insight on responses by countries. The indicator examines the application by countries of a legal/regulatory/policy/institutional framework for the recognition and protection of access rights for small-scale fisheries. However, this can be expected to be a complex process which could require substantial amount of time to advance legal, administrative and capacity development efforts. A realistic numerical target for 2030 could be envisaged, but would need to be confirmed based on survey responses and results in the next survey effort. The new indicator would need a baseline which could be formulated based on results from the next survey period. \n\n see report for more details on basline value for 2015",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  14.c,TRUE,14,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-14.pdf,24,"Enhance the conservation and sustainable use of oceans and their resources by implementing law as reflected in United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea, which provides the legal framework for the conservation and sustainable use of oceans and their resources, as recalled in paragraph 158 of ""The future we want""",14.c.1,"Broj zemalja koje napreduju u ratifikaciji, prihvaćanju i provedbi pravnih, političkih i institucionalnih okvira, instrumenata vezanih uz ocean koji provode međunarodno pravo, što se odražava u Konvenciji Ujedinjenih naroda o pravu mora, radi očuvanja i održivog korištenja oceana i njihovih resursa",ILO,,"This indicator conveys the number of countries that have ratified the ILO Maritime Labour Convention of 2006. ILO conventions are legally binding international treaties drawn up by the ILO's constituents (governments, employers and workers) and setting out basic principles and rights at work. The ILO Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) is a single, coherent instrument embodying as far as possible all up-to-date standards of existing international maritime labour conventions and recommendations, as well as the fundamental principles to be found in other international labour conventions.",,"This comprehensive convention sets out in one place seafarers' rights to decent conditions of work on almost every aspect of their working and living conditions including, among others, minimum age, employment agreements, hours of work or rest, payment of wages, paid annual leave, repatriation at the end of contract, onboard medical care, the use of licensed private recruitment and placement services, accommodation, food and catering, health and safety protection and accident prevention and seafarers' complaint handling. It represents an essential step toward ensuring fair competition and a level-playing field for quality owners of ships flying the flags of ratifying countries. Given that these international legal measures are aimed at improving working and living conditions for seafarers, the most globalized of the world's workers, the number of countries that have ratified the ILO Maritime Labour Convention gives an indication of the situation of maritime workers around the world.",,,,,,,,,,,"The ILO has information on all conventions ratified and not ratified by each country, and on the global number of countries that ratified each convention, including the Maritime Labour Convention. Such information can be found in NORMLEX, the ILO Information System on International Labour Standards.","The ILO Maritime Labour Convention is considered the ""fourth pillar"" of the international regulatory regime for quality shipping, complementing the key conventions of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) dealing with safety and security of ships and protection of the marine environment. Thus, the ratifications of all these conventions should be analyzed together. Moreover, the number of conventions ratified does not convey any information on their actual application or on the respect in practice of international labour standards in the national context.","The ILO recognizes gender equality not only as a basic human right, but also as intrinsic to the global aim of decent work for all. The ILO mandate on gender equality is stated in numerous resolutions of the International Labour Conference, as well as relevant International Labour Conventions (including the ILO Maritime Labour Convention).","The ILO has information on all ILO member states (185), of which 66 ratified the Maritime Labour Convention of 2006.","For further details, refer to the ILO database on the ratification and implementation of the Maritime Labour Convention of 2006, available at http://www.ilo.org/global/standards/maritime-labour-convention/databaseratification-implementation/lang--en/index.htm",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  15.1,TRUE,15,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-15.pdf,2,"By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains and drylands, in line with obligations under international agreements.",15.1.1,Površina pod šumama kao udio u ukupnoj kopnenoj površini,FAO,,"The indicator is already included among the indicators for the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) (indicator 7.1 ""Proportion of land covered by forest"") . In order to provide a precise definition of the indicator, it is crucial to provide a definition of ""Forest"" and ""Total Land Area"". According to the FAO definitions, Forest is defined as ""land spanning more than 0.5 hectares with trees higher than 5 meters and a canopy cover of more than 10 percent, or trees able to reach these thresholds in situ. It does not include land that is predominantly under agricultural or urban land use"". More specifically: \n\tForest is determined both by the presence of trees and the absence of other predominant land uses. The trees should be able to reach a minimum height of 5 meters. \n\tIt includes areas with young trees that have not yet reached but which are expected to reach a canopy cover of at least 10 percent and tree height of 5 meters or more. It also includes areas that are temporarily unstocked due to clear-cutting as part of a forest management practice or natural disasters, and which are expected to be regenerated within 5 years. Local conditions may, in exceptional cases, justify that a longer time frame is used. \n\tIt includes forest roads, firebreaks and other small open areas; forest in national parks, nature reserves and other protected areas such as those of specific environmental, scientific, historical, cultural or spiritual interest. \n\tIt includes windbreaks, shelterbelts and corridors of trees with an area of more than 0.5 hectares and width of more than 20 meters. \n\tIt includes abandoned shifting cultivation land with a regeneration of trees that have, or are expected to reach, a canopy cover of at least 10 percent and tree height of at least 5 meters. \n\tIt includes areas with mangroves in tidal zones, regardless whether this area is classified as land area or not. \n\tIt includes rubberwood, cork oak and Christmas tree plantations. \n\tIt includes areas with bamboo and palms provided that land use, height and canopy cover criteria are met. \n\tIt excludes tree stands in agricultural production systems, such as fruit tree plantations, oil palm plantations, olive orchards and agroforestry systems when crops are grown under tree cover. Note: Some agroforestry systems such as the ""Taungya"" system where crops are grown only during the first years of the forest rotation should be classified as forest. \nTotal land area is the total surface area of a country less the area covered by inland waters, like major rivers and lakes.",,,,,"Forests fulfil a number of functions that are vital for humanity, including the provision of goods (wood and nonwood forest products) and services such as habitat for biodiversity, carbon sequestration, coastal protection and soil and water conservation. \nThe indicator provides a measure of the relative extent of forest in a country. The availability of accurate data on a country's forest area is a key element for forest policy and planning within the context of sustainable development. Changes in forest area reflect the demand for land for other uses and may help identify unsustainable practices in the forestry and agricultural sector. \nForest area as percentage of total land area may be used as a rough proxy for the extent to which the forests in a country are being conserved or restored, but it is only partly a measure for the extent to which they are sustainably managed. \nThis is indicator is primarily proposed for Target 15.1. However, it is also related to Target 6.6.","Yes, the indicator already exists. FAO reports the data to UNSTATS. Further information can be found at: http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Metadata.aspx (metadata needs updating).","Reliability \nIt is not possible to determine a statistical margin of error of the estimates. The accuracy varies across countries depending on available information. When reporting countries are asked to assign a Tier level 1, 2 or 3 indicating the level of detail of data sources used for reporting (where Tier 3 is regarded as the highest level of detail). Typically, Tier 3 estimates are recent data (i.e., less than 10 years ago) from National Forest Inventories (NFIs) or remote sensing, with ground validation or programme for repeated compatible NFIs. Tier 2 are older estimates (i.e., more than 10 years) from NFIs or full cover mapping/remote sensing. Core is any other data sources including expert estimates. \nCoverage \nFAO carries out global forest resources assessments at 5 year intervals, the results of the FRA 2015 will be released in September 2015 and next assessment will most likely be in 2020. Given the relative low accuracy of the reported data and the slow change, it is not advisable to report these data more frequently (i.e., annual reporting does not provide any added value). \nComparability across countries \nThe national figures in the global assessments are reported by the countries themselves following standardized format, definitions and reporting years, ensuring that data is comparable across countries and regions. \nFurther, the reporting format ensures that countries provide the full reference for original data sources as well as national definitions and terminology. Separate sections in the reporting format (country reports) deal with the analysis of data (including any assumptions made and the methods used for estimates and projections to the common reporting years). \nSub-national estimates \nCurrently it is not possible to compute the indicator at sub-national level",,,,,,,,,,,,6.6,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  15.1,FALSE,15,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-15.pdf,4,"By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains and drylands, in line with obligations under international agreements.",15.1.2,"Udio važnih mjesta kopnene i slatkovodne biološke raznolikosti koja su obuhvaćena zaštićenim područjima, prema vrsti ekosustava",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  15.2,TRUE,15,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-15.pdf,5,"By 2020, promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests, halt deforestation, restore degraded forests and substantially increase afforestation and reforestation globally.",15.2.1,Napredak prema održivom upravljanju šumama,FAO,,"Sustainable forest management is a central concept for Goal 15 and target 15.1 as well as for target 15.2. It has been formally defined, by the UN General Assembly, as follows: [a] dynamic and evolving concept [that] aims to maintain and enhance the economic, social and environmental values of all types of forests, for the benefit of present and future generations"". (Resolution A/RES/62/98) \nAn ""index of sustainable forest management"" with four sub-indicators can be used as a basic indicator of progress towards sustainable forest management by a country. The four sub-indicators are \n\t1. Annual average percent change in forest area over most recent available 5 year period \n\t2. Annual average percent change in stock of carbon in above ground biomass over most recent available 5 year period \n\t3. Share of forest area whose primary designated function is biodiversity conservation, most recent period \n\t4. Share of forest area under a forest management plan, of which forest area certified under an independent forest management certification scheme, most recent period \nFor each of these components, countries can set national targets, monitor and report on progress. The four sub-indicators will be combined into a single composite index, but targets would be set at the level of sub-indicators. Once targets have been set by national authorities, in terms of the four sub-indicators, and progress measured over an agreed period, countries would assess progress (on track to exceed target, on track to achieve target, progress but at an insufficient rate, no significant overall progress, moving away from target). The final value of the index would be a simple arithmetic average of the values for the four sub-indicators. The use of national targets allows each country to define sustainable forest management for its own specific circumstances, within a coherent international framework. Targets on the sub-indicators can also be set at regional or global levels.",,"The definition of SFM by UN GA contains several key aspects, notably that sustainable forest management is a concept which varies over time and between countries, whose circumstances ' ecological, social and economic ' vary widely, but that it should always address a wide range of forest values, including economic, social and environmental values, and take intergenerational equity into account. \nClearly a simple measure of change in forest area, while essential, and used for target 15.1, is insufficient to monitor sustainable forest management as a whole. The index proposed combines the two indicators at present under consideration (""forest loss"" and ""area certified"") with measures of use/degradation (sub-indicator 2), biodiversity conservation (sub-indicator 3) to give a more rounded picture of sustainable forest management. Further ""topical"" sub-indicators will be needed to provide a more comprehensive assessment of SFM aspects. The significance of the four sub-indicators may be briefly explained as follows: \n\t1. Trends in forest area are crucial for monitoring SFM: clearly, if there is significant uncontrolled deforestation, forest management is not sustainable. The indicator focuses on change as there is no ideal share of forest in land cover, as the share is determined by history, ecological circumstances and competing land uses. The indicator covers the net effect of the other parts of Target 15.2: ""halt deforestation"" and ""substantially increase afforestation and reforestation"". However most countries have reliable data on the components of this overall trend (deforestation, afforestation and reforestation), for which separate targets can be specified, if so desired. This component incorporates the concept of ""net permanent forest loss "" at present classified ""green"" and is also used for Target 15.1 \n\t2. Changes in the stock of biomass are determined by the balance between increase in volume of wood biomass (annual increment) and decrease (natural losses and damage by fire insects etc., and wood harvest). In a sustainably managed forest, increment is more than losses, so that the biomass stock increases, or does not decrease, and carbon is sequestered from the atmosphere. With very few exceptions, a decline in total biomass stocks, even if the forest area does not decrease, implies unsustainable management (and possible degradation). As the wood/carbon ratio is constant, there will be exactly the same trends for carbon stocks as for wood biomass. Therefore a single indicator addresses carbon stocks and flows and trends in growing stock of wood, and may be expressed in m3 of wood or in tons of carbon. \n\t3. Forest areas managed for the conservation of biodiversity are a proxy for trends in forest biodiversity and a clear indication of political will to incorporate biodiversity into forest management. The CBD Aichi Target 11 calls for each country to conserve at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water areas, so this may be taken as a goal for this element. Work is in hand on developing a number of indicators of forest biodiversity, which may be useful in the future. \n\t4. The fourth parameter looks at the area within a country where a key tool for sustainable forest management is applied. The existence of a ""forest management plan"" is a necessary tool for evidence based, long term management. Those areas that are certified by third party schemes as being sustainably managed work on the basis of an independently verified management plan. While the latter fulfils a higher standard, it should be pointed out that there are very significant areas of sustainably managed forest which are not certified, either because their owners have chosen not to seek certification (which is voluntary and market-based) or because no credible (or affordable) certification scheme is in place for that area. The latter is true for most tropical countries. For this reason, using ""area of certified forest"" as the sole indicator could give a misleading impression.",,,,,,,"Countries, through official government-nominated correspondents, provide data for all four elements through established data collection mechanisms, in particular the Forest Resources Assessment (FRA) of FAO. Most recently published in 2015. Data on the subindicators is available from practically all countries and territories, accompanied by extensive metadata on sources, definitions, conversion from national data to international standards and data quality. All FRA data are submitted (and officially approved) by national authorities. To the extent that the indicator uses terms compatible with FRA, comparable data are easily available and national statistical offices can validate and modify them as necessary. \nDefinitions and concepts used for the sub-indicators have been specified and agreed over many years of international collaboration between experts nominated by national governments, international bodies and UN agencies. Data supplied by national authorities follow the agreed FRA2015 terms and definitions, which are now well known and accepted by forest specialists. See Forest Resources Assessment Working Paper - 180: FRA 2015 Terms and Definitions, available at http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/2560/en/",,,,"See also ""Sources and data collection"". Data can be provided directly by member countries or, if necessary, taken from the FAO database at http://www.fao.org/forest-resourcesassessment/explore-data/en/. The parameters chosen are all measured directly at the national level, so countries can easily set their target values. If it is considered desirable to aggregate to the regional or global level, this presents no conceptual problems.","The four elements all address major concerns, but, for conceptual and data reasons, some aspects of sustainable forest management are not included, notably jobs and livelihoods, revenue and valuation of benefits, forest health and vitality, protection function of forests (soil, water, erosion etc.). Regional and inter-regional collaboration between countries has been on-going for around 15 years to monitor aspects of sustainable forest management in more detail, supported by intergovernmental bodies. The sub-indicators used in this context build a solid foundation for the further development of more specific ""thematic""indicators. However at present, this more comprehensive approach gives results which are too complex and location specific for inclusion in the global multi-sector SDG indicator set. \nForest degradation: UNCCD is working together with FAO on land degradation under target 15.3 so degradation of forest land, as mentioned in Target 15.2 (""restore degraded forests"") may be monitored through that indicator. Trends in biomass, especially when put on a per hectare basis, can give some indication of forest degradation. \nProtective functions of forests: A Mountain Green Index is being developed for Target 15.4. This would also provide relevant information on the protective functions and could at a later stage, be incorporated into the SFM index for Target 15.2.",,,"This metadata sheet was elaborated by FAO in collaboration and coordination through an informal partnership of agencies and processes with relevant experience, including notably FAO, UN Forum on Forests, CBD, UNCCD, International Tropical Timber Organisation, and regional criteria and indicator processes for Europe, Amazon, Congo Basin, low forest cover countries, and the Montr'al Process3 region.\nThe SFM index incorporates in a single framework the two indicators already proposed to IAEG: ""net permanent forest loss"" (in modified form to address weaknesses of the concept of ""net permanent forest loss"") ""area of certified forest"", which would not then have to be monitored separately.","United Nations General Assembly resolution A/RES/62/98, 31 January 2008 (definition of sustainable forest management, non-legally binding instrument for all types of forest) \nFAO Global Forest Resources Assessments at http://www.fao.org/forest-resourcesassessment/en/",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  15.3,FALSE,15,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-15.pdf,8,"By 2030, combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by desertification, drought and floods, and strive to achieve a land degradation-neutral world.",15.3.1,Udio zemljišta koji je degradiran u odnosu na ukupnu površinu zemljišta,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  15.4,FALSE,15,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-15.pdf,9,"By 2030, ensure the conservation of mountain ecosystems, including their biodiversity, in order to enhance their capacity to provide benefits that are essential for sustainable development.",15.4.1,Rasprostranjenost zaštićenih područja važnih mjesta za planinsku biološku raznolikost,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  15.4,TRUE,15,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-15.pdf,9,"By 2030, ensure the conservation of mountain ecosystems, including their biodiversity, in order to enhance their capacity to provide benefits that are essential for sustainable development.",15.4.2,Planinski Zeleni pokrovni Indeks,FAO,,"The Green Cover Index is designed to measure the changes of the green vegetation in mountain areas (i.e., forest, shrubs and trees).",,,,,"The scientific mountain community recognizes the existence of a direct correlation between the green coverage of mountain areas and their state of health, and ' as a consequence ' their capacity of fulfilling their ecosystem roles. Therefore, monitoring the mountain vegetation change over time provides an adequate measure of the status of conservation of mountain ecosystems. \nIn particular, the ""Mountain Green Cover Index"" can provide information on the forest and woody cover. Its reduction will be generally linked to forest exploitation, timber extraction, fuel-wood collection, and fire. Its increase will be due to vegetation growth possibly linked to reforestation or afforestation programmes. The proposed Index will provide a meaningful proxy for assessing the progress of all three mountain targets (i.e., 6.6.; 15.1; and 15.4). If an order of relevance is needed, this is our proposed ranking: \n\ta) 15.4 \n\tb) 15.1 \n\tc) 6.6 \nWe assign priority to 15.4 because this is solely ""pure"" mountain indicator.","This indicator does not exist yet but it can be developed using the existing dataset Global Land Cover (GLC) SHARE maintained by FAO's NRL Division. \nThe data set GLC SHARE developed by FAO's NRL Division will be used as basis for the computation of the indicator, jointly with the definition of mountain areas as provided by UNEP-WCMC Produced in 2000 by UNEP-WCMC, the first map of the world's mountains defined them according to altitude, slope and local elevation range: \n\tClass 1: Elevation > 4,500 metres \n\tClass 2: Elevation 3,500'4,500 metres \n\tClass 3: Elevation 2,500'3,500 metres \n\tClass 4: Elevation 1,500'2,500 metres and slope > 2 \n\tClass 5: Elevation 1,000'1,500 metres and slope > 5 or local elevation range (LER(*) 7 kilometre radius) > 300 metres \n\tClass 6: Elevation 300'1,000 metres and local elevation range (7 kilometre radius) > 300 metres outside 23N'19S \nAs a first step and in order to define the baseline, the exercise will initially provide an overview of the current vegetation cover in mountain areas (based on GLC-SHARE 2014), and will include maps and area calculations of the current amount of woody vegetation (trees/shrubs) cover for each country, region and at global level and also by mountain class layer. \nIn five years' time, a comparison will be undertaken between GLC-SHARE 2014 and that of 2019 from which a trend will be extrapolated. \nThis five-year monitoring cycle is subject to the release of the GLC-SHARE data compiled by FAO's Land and Water Division (NRL); the monitoring and analysis will be under the responsibility of the Forest Conservation and Management Division and in particular of the Mountain Partnership Secretariat.","The index derives most of the information from GLC-SHARE, so their reliability and potential coverage are highly interrelated. \nGLC-SHARE (v. 1.0): ""The Global Land Cover-SHARE (GLC-SHARE) is a new land cover database at the global level created by FAO's Land and Water Division in partnership and with contribution from various partners and institutions. It provides a set of eleven major thematic land cover layers resulting from a combination of ""best available"" high resolution national, regional and/or sub-national land cover databases. The database is produced with a resolution of 30 arc-second2 (~1sqkm). The GLC-SHARE 2012 BetaRelease 1.0 is published by FAO in 2014. Complete free and open access to the data and metadata products are available at FAO GeoNetwork (www.fao.org/geonetwork).""\nThanks to the way GLC-SHARE is structured, the Mountain Green Cover Index has a global coverage and it is possible to compute the indicator at the global, regional, national and sub-national level. In addition, the indicator allows for an analysis across the different mountain elevation classes. Comparability across countries is technically feasible, but it is not necessarily the most interesting statistics that the index can provide.",,,,,,,,,,,,6.6,15.1,15.4,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  15.5,TRUE,15,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-15.pdf,11,"Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity, and, by 2020, protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species.",15.5.1,Indeks crvenog popisa,IUCN,,"Definition \nThe Red List Index is a multi-purpose indicator which measures the aggregate change in extinction risk across groups of species. It is based on the number of species in each category of extinction risk on The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. This indicator is expressed as an index ranging from 0 to 1. \nConcepts \nThreatened species are those listed on The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species in the categories Vulnerable, Endangered, or Critically Endangered (i.e., species that are facing a high, very high, or extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the medium-term future). Changes over time in the proportion of species threatened with extinction are largely driven by improvements in knowledge and changing taxonomy. The IUCN Red List Index (RLI) therefore accounts for such changes to yield a more informative indicator than the simple proportion of threatened species. It measures change in aggregate extinction risk across groups of species over time, resulting from genuine improvements or deteriorations in the status of individual species. It can be calculated for any representative set of species that have been assessed for The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species at least twice.","The IUCN RLI is calculated at a point in time by first multiplying the number of species in each Red List Category by a weight (ranging from 1 for 'Near Threatened' to 5 for 'Extinct' and 'Extinct in the Wild') and summing these values. This is then divided by a maximum threat score which is the total number of species multiplied by the weight assigned to the 'Extinct' category. This final value is subtracted from 1 to give the IUCN RLI value. \n\n see report for mathematical calculation expression \n\n The formula requires that: \n\tExactly the same set of species is included in all time periods, and \n\tThe only Red List Category changes are those resulting from genuine improvement or deterioration in status (i.e., excluding changes resulting from improved knowledge or taxonomic revisions), and \n\tData Deficient species be excluded. \nIn many cases, species lists will change slightly from one assessment to the next (e.g., owing to taxonomic revisions). The conditions can therefore be met by retrospectively adjusting earlier Red List categorizations using current information and taxonomy. This is achieved by assuming that the current Red List Categories for the taxa have applied since the set of species was first assessed for the Red List, unless there is information to the contrary that genuine status changes have occurred. Such information is often contextual (e.g., relating to the known history of habitat loss within the range of the species). If there is insufficient information available for a newly added species, it is not incorporated into the IUCN RLI until it is assessed for a second time, at which point earlier assessments are retrospectively corrected by extrapolating recent trends in population, range, habitat and threats, supported by additional information. To avoid spurious results from biased selection of species, RLIs are typically calculated only for taxonomic groups in which all species worldwide have been assessed for the Red List, or for samples of species that have been systematically or randomly selected.","The world's species are impacted by a number of threatening processes, including habitat destruction and degradation, overexploitation, invasive alien species, human disturbance, pollution and climate change. This indicator can be used to assess overall changes in the extinction risk of groups of species as a result of these threats and the extent to which threats are being mitigated. \nThe IUCN RLI value ranges from 1 (all species are categorized as 'Least Concern') to 0 (all species are categorized as 'Extinct'). An intermediate value indicates how far the set of species has moved overall towards extinction. Thus, the IUCN RLI allows comparisons between sets of species in both their overall level of extinction risk (i.e., how threatened they are on average), and in the rate at which this risk changes over time. A downward trend in the IUCN RLI over time means that the expected rate of future species extinctions is worsening (i.e., the rate of biodiversity loss is increasing). An upward trend means that the expected rate of species extinctions is abating (i.e., the rate of biodiversity loss is decreasing), and a horizontal line means that the expected rate of species extinctions is remaining the same, although in each of these cases it does not mean that biodiversity loss has stopped. An upward IUCN RLI trend would indicate that the SDG Target 15.5 of reducing the degradation of natural habitats and protecting threatened species is on track towards halting the loss of biodiversity and thus preventing the extinction of threatened species by 2020. An IUCN RLI value of 1 would indicate that biodiversity loss has been halted. \nThe name ""Red List Index"" should not be taken to imply that the indicator is produced as a composite indicator of a number of disparate metrics, in the same way that, e.g., the Multidimensional Poverty Index is compiled. Rather, the RLI is an indicator of trends in species' extinction risk, as measured using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria, and is compiled from data on changes over time in the Red List Category for each species, excluding any changes driven by improved knowledge or revised taxonomy.",,,,,,,"National agencies producing IUCN RLI data include non-governmental organisations (NGOs), government, and academic institutions working jointly and separately. Data are gathered from published and unpublished sources, species experts, scientists, and conservationists through correspondence, workshops, and electronic fora. Data are submitted by national agencies to IUCN, or are gathered through initiatives of the IUCN Red List Partnership, which includes: BirdLife International; Botanic Gardens Conservation International; Conservation International; Microsoft; NatureServe; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Sapienza University of Rome; Texas A&M University; Wildscreen; and Zoological Society of London. \nMost countries of the world have initiated programmes to assess the status of their species using IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. These countries will be able to implement the IUCN RLI based on national extinction risk, once they have carried out at least two national Red Lists using the IUCN system in a consistent way. An increasing number of countries have now completed national RLIs for a range of taxa.",,,"This indicator can be disaggregated by ecosystems, habitats, countries and other political and geographic divisions, taxonomic subsets (e.g., families), suites of species relevant to particular international treaties or legislation, by species that are exposed to particular threatening processes or that deliver particular ecosystem services, or by biological or life-history traits. In each case, information can be obtained from The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species to determine which species are relevant to particular subsets (e.g. which occur in particular ecosystems, habitats, and geographic areas of interest). \nTrends for disaggregated RLIs are typically calculated by excluding genuine status changes (Red List category changes) that were driven by processes operating outside the ecosystem/habitat/country. \nDisaggregations of particular relevance as indicators towards SDG targets include: \nSDG 2.4\t Red List Index (species used for food and medicine); a disaggregation of the IUCN RLI used by the Biodiversity Indicators Partnership as an indicator towards Aichi Target 14 http://www.bipindicators.net/foodandmedicine. \nSDG 2.5\t Red List Index (wild relatives and local breeds); the assessment of wild relatives and local breeds of domesticated animals and plants would allow the derivation of this indicator as a disaggregation of the IUCN RLI modifying that used by the Biodiversity Indicators Partnership as an indicator towards Aichi Target 13 www.bipindicators.net/domesticatedanimals. \nSDG 12.2\t Red List Index (impacts of utilisation); a disaggregation of the IUCN RLI used by the Biodiversity Indicators Partnership as an indicator towards Aichi Target 4 www.bipindicators.net/redlistindexforbirdsmammalsandamphibians. This currently indicates trends in extinction risk resulting from biological resource use, derived by excluding all Red List Category changes other than those driven by unsustainable utilisation or from successful efforts to reduce or manage utilisation sustainably. \nSDG 12.4\t Red List Index (impacts of pollution); a disaggregation of the IUCN RLI derived by excluding all Red List Category changes other than those driven by the negative impacts of pollution or from successful efforts to reduce these. \nSDG 13.1\t Red List Index (impacts of climate change); a disaggregation of the IUCN RLI derived by excluding all Red List Category changes other than those driven by the negative impacts of climate change and severe weather or from successful adaptation interventions. \nSDG 14.1\t Red List Index (impacts of pollution on marine species); a disaggregation of the IUCN RLI for marine species, derived by excluding all Red List Category changes other than those driven by the negative impacts of pollution or from successful efforts to reduce these. \nSDG 14.2\t Red List Index (marine species); a disaggregation of the IUCN RLI for marine species. \nSDG 14.3\t Red List Index (reef-building coral species); a disaggregation of the IUCN RLI for reefbuilding coral species. As and when comprehensive or sampled Red List assessments have been completed for coral reef fishes, molluscs, or other taxa, these could also be incorporated into this indicator. \nSDG 14.4\t Red List Index (impacts of utilisation on marine species); a disaggregation of the IUCN RLI for marine species of the indicator used by the Biodiversity Indicators Partnership as an indicator towards Aichi Target 4 www.bipindicators.net/redlistindexforbirdsmammalsandamphibians, derived by excluding all Red List Category changes other than those driven by unsustainable utilisation or from successful efforts to reduce or manage utilisation sustainably. \nSDG 15.1\t Red List Index (terrestrial & freshwater species); a disaggregation of the IUCN RLI for terrestrial & freshwater species. \nSDG 15.2\t Red List Index (forest-specialist species); a disaggregation of the IUCN RLI for forestspecialist species. \nSDG 15.4\t Red List Index (mountain species); a disaggregation of the IUCN RLI for mountain species. \nSDG 15.7\t Red List Index (impacts of utilisation); a disaggregation of the IUCN RLI used by the Biodiversity Indicators Partnership as an indicator towards Aichi Target 4 www.bipindicators.net/redlistindexforbirdsmammalsandamphibians, derived by excluding all Red List Category changes other than those driven by unsustainable utilisation or from successful efforts to reduce or manage utilisation sustainably. \nSDG 15.8\t Red List Index (impacts of invasive alien species); a disaggregation of the IUCN RLI used by the Biodiversity Indicators Partnership as an indicator towards Aichi Target 9 http://www.bipindicators.net/birdrlitrendsdrivenbyias, derived by excluding all Red List Category changes other than those driven by the negative impacts of invasive alien species or from successful efforts to control or eradicate these.","The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List Index (RLI) is used as the basis for calculating this indicator. \nThe Red List Categories and Criteria and associated documentation for each species on the IUCN Red List are determined globally and provided principally by the Specialist Groups and stand-alone Red List Authorities of the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC), IUCN Secretariat-led initiatives, the BirdLife International partnership, and the other IUCN Red List partner organizations. The staff of the IUCN Global Species Programme compile, validate, and curate these data, and are responsible for publishing and communicating the results. \nRed List assessments are made, either through open workshops or open-access web-based discussion fora. Assessments are reviewed by the appropriate Red List Authority (an individual or organization appointed by the IUCN SSC to review assessments for specific species or groups of species) to ensure standardization and consistency in the interpretation of information and application of the criteria. A Red List Technical Working Group and the IUCN Red List Unit work to ensure consistent categorization between species, groups and assessments. Finally, a Standards and Petitions Sub-committee monitors the process and resolves challenges and disputes over Red List assessments. The IUCN RLI can be applied at global, regional, and national scales. Global IUCN RLIs are based on repeated assessments of species' extinction risk at the global scale. While they can be disaggregated to show trends for species at smaller spatial scales, the reverse is not true. National or regional IUCN RLIs cannot be aggregated to produce IUCN RLIs showing global trends. This is because a taxon's global extinction risk has to be evaluated at the global scale and cannot be directly determined from multiple national scale assessments across its range (although the data from such assessments can be aggregated for inclusion in the global assessment). The IUCN publishes guidelines on applying the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria at regional or national scales. If all species within a particular region or country have been assessed at least twice using the IUCN approach, an IUCN RLI can be calculated from national data. \nThe global IUCN Red List is updated annually. IUCN RLIs for any sets of species that have been comprehensively reassessed in that year are usually released alongside the update of the IUCN Red List. Data stored and managed in the IUCN Red List database (IUCN's Species Information Service, SIS) are made freely available for non-commercial use through the IUCN Red List website.","There are four main sources of uncertainty associated with IUCN RLI values and trends. \n\t(a) Inadequate, incomplete or inaccurate knowledge of a species' status. This uncertainty is minimized by assigning estimates of extinction risk to categories that are broad in magnitude and timing. \n\t(b) Delays in knowledge about a species becoming available for assessment. Such delays apply to a small (and diminishing) proportion of status changes, and can be overcome in the IUCN RLI through back-casting. \n\t(c) Inconsistency between species assessments. These can be minimized by the requirement to provide supporting documentation detailing the best available data, with justifications, sources, and estimates of uncertainty and data quality, which are checked and standardized by IUCN through Red List Authorities, a Red List Technical Working Group and an independent Standards and Petitions Sub-committee. Further, detailed Guidelines on the Application of the Categories and Criteria are maintained, as is an online training course (in English, Spanish and French). \n\t(d) Species that are too poorly known for the Red List Criteria to be applied are assigned to the Data Deficient category, and excluded from the calculation of the IUCN RLI. For birds, only 0.8 per cent of extant species are evaluated as Data Deficient, compared with 24 per cent of amphibians. If Data Deficient species differ in the rate at which their extinction risk is changing, the IUCN RLI may give a biased picture of the changing extinction risk of the overall set of species. The degree of uncertainty this introduces can be estimated through a bootstrapping procedure that randomly assigns each Data Deficient species a category based on the numbers of non-Data Deficient species in each Red List category for the set of species under consideration, and repeats this for 1,000 iterations, plotting the 2.5 and 97.5 percentiles as lower and upper confidence intervals for the median. \nThe main limitation of the IUCN RLI is related to the fact that the Red List Categories are relatively broad measures of status, and the IUCN RLI can practically be updated at intervals of at least four years. The IUCN RLI captures trends in one particular aspect of biodiversity: the rate at which species are moving towards or away from extinction. However, biodiversity encompasses a much wider spectrum, from genes, through populations and species, to ecosystems. In addition, the IUCN RLI does not capture particularly well the deteriorating status of common species that are declining slowly as a result of general environmental degradation.","There are no direct gender equity issues associated with the IUCN RLI. However, it is essential to recognise that women play a central role in the conservation, management and use of biodiversity. In many rural areas of developing countries, women's daily tasks are often tied closely to biodiversity. They are often responsible for gathering edible wild plants (fruits, leaves and roots of native plants) to feed their families as a supplement to agricultural grains, especially during unfavourable situations such as famine, conflicts and epidemics. Women often also gather medicinal plants, firewood and other bush products for medicine, fuel, house-building, paint and even manure and pesticide. Women's knowledge of biodiversity is immense and broad, because their communities' well-being depends on it, and preservation of this knowledge is crucial for maintaining biodiversity. Yet, their contribution is often overlooked. They are typically ""invisible"" partners from grassroots to policy level. There is therefore an urgent need to consider gender issues in development efforts, to promote true partnership and ensure the sustainable conservation and use of biodiversity.",,,"BAILLIE, J. E. M. et al. (2004). 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: a Global Species Assessment. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, United Kingdom. Available from https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/9830. \nBROOKS, T. M. et al. (2015). Harnessing biodiversity and conservation knowledge products to track the Aichi Targets and Sustainable Development Goals. Biodiversity. In press. \nBUBB, P.J. et al. (2009). IUCN Red List Index - Guidance for National and Regional Use. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Available from https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/9321. \nBUTCHART, S. H. M. et al. (2010). Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328: 1164'1168. Available from http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5982/1164.short. \nBUTCHART, S. H. M. (2008). Red List Indices to measure the sustainability of species use and impacts of invasive alien species. Bird Conservation International 18 (suppl.): 245'262. Available from http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=BCI. \nBUTCHART, S. H. M. et al. (2007). Improvements to the Red List Index. PLoS ONE 2(1): e140. Available from http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0000140. \nBUTCHART, S. H. M. et al. (2006). Biodiversity indicators based on trends in conservation status: strengths of the IUCN Red List Index. Conservation Biology 20: 579'581. Available from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00410.x/abstract. \nBUTCHART, S. H. M. et al. (2005). Using Red List Indices to measure progress towards the 2010 target and beyond. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 360: 255'268. Available from http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/360/1454/255.full. \nBUTCHART, S. H. M. et al. (2004). Measuring global trends in the status of biodiversity: Red List Indices for birds. PLoS Biology 2(12): e383. Available from http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020383. \nCARPENTER, K. E. (2008). One-third of reef-building corals face elevated extinction risk from climate change and local impacts. Science 321: 560'563. Available from http://www.sciencemag.org/content/321/5888/560.short. \nCROXALL, J. P. et al. (2012). Seabird conservation status, threats and priority actions: a global assessment. Bird Conservation International 22: 1'34. \nG'RDENFORS, U. (ed.) (2010). R'dlistade arter i Sverige 2010 ' The 2010 Red List of Swedish Species. ArtDatabanken, SLU, Uppsala. \nHAN, X. et al. (2014). A Biodiversity indicators dashboard: addressing challenges to monitoring progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets using disaggregated global data. PLoS ONE 9(11): e112046. Available from http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0112046. \nHOFFMANN, M. et al. (2010). The impact of conservation on the status of the world's vertebrates. Science 330: 1503'1509. Available from http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6010/1503.short. \nHOFFMANN, M. et al. (2011). The changing fates of the world's mammals. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 366: 2598'2610. Available from http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1578/2598.abstract \nINTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE STANDARDS AND PETITIONS SUBCOMMITTEE (2014) Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 11. IUCN Standards and Petitions Subcommittee, Gland, Switzerland. Available from http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf. \nINTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE (2012). IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. Second edition. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Available from https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/10315. \nINTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE (2012). Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional and National Levels: Version 4.0. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Available from https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/10336. \nINTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE (2015). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.1. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Available from http://www.iucnredlist.org. \nMACE, G. M. et al. (2008) Quantification of extinction risk: IUCN's system for classifying threatened species. Conservation Biology 22: 1424'1442. Available from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523- 1739.2008.01044.x/full. \nMCGEOCH, M. A. et al. (2010) Global indicators of biological invasion: species numbers, biodiversity impact and policy responses. Diversity and Distributions 16: 95'108. Available from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2009.00633.x/abstract. \nPIHL, S. & FLENSTED, K. N. (2011). A Red List Index for breeding birds in Denmark in the period 1991- 2009. Dansk Ornitologisk Forenings Tidsskrift 105: 211-218. \nREGAN, E. et al. (2015). Global trends in the status of bird and mammal pollinators. Conservation Letters. doi: 10.1111/conl.12162. Available from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12162/abstract. \nRODRIGUES, A. S. L. et al. (2014). Spatially explicit trends in the global conservation status of vertebrates. PLoS ONE 9(11): e113934. Available from http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0113934. \nSALAFSKY, N., et al. (2008) A standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation: unified classifications of threats and actions. Conservation Biology 22: 897'911. Available from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00937.x/full. \nSECRETARIAT OF THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY (2014). Global Biodiversity Outlook 4. Montr'al, Canada. Available from https://www.cbd.int/gbo4/. \nTITTENSOR, D. et al. (2014). A mid-term analysis of progress towards international biodiversity targets. Science 346: 241'244. Available from http://www.sciencemag.org/content/346/6206/241.short. \nVISCONTI, P. et al (2015) Projecting global biodiversity indicators under future development scenarios. Conservation Letters. doi: 10.1111/conl.12159. Available from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12159/abstract.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  15.6,TRUE,15,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-15.pdf,18,"Promote fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources and promote appropriate access to such resources, as internationally agreed",15.6.1,"Broj zemalja koje su usvojile zakonodavne, administrativne i političke okvire kako bi osigurale pravednu raspodjelu naknada",FAO,,"This indicator builds on concrete cases in which agreement has been reached on the transfer of genetic resources between the resource provider and the resource recipient, including on how benefits arising from the use of the genetic resources will be shared. \nParties to the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity (Nagoya Protocol) that subject access to genetic resources to prior informed consent are obliged under Article 6 (3)e of the Nagoya Protocol to issue a ""permit or its equivalent as evidence of the decision to grant prior informed consent and of the establishment of mutually agreed terms."" The ABS Clearinghouse will make permits available online: https://absch.cbd.int/. \nThe Standard Material Transfer Agreement (SMTA) is a mandatory contract that Parties to the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (International Treaty) have agreed to use whenever plant genetic resources falling under the Treaty's Access and Benefit-sharing mechanism are made available. The SMTA defines the conditions of use of the plant genetic resources as well as the benefitsharing conditions. According to the SMTA providers shall inform the Governing Body about the Standard Material Transfer Agreements entered into. In addition, recipients who transfer resources received under a SMTA to third parties shall do so under the terms and conditions of the SMTA and shall notify the Governing Body. SMTAs are stored in the Data Store of the International Treaty. As of 21 August 2015, the Data Store has recorded 34,898 SMTAs from providers located in 30 countries, distributing material to recipients based in 172 countries. (https://mls.planttreaty.org/itt/index.php?r=stats/pubStats). \nIt should be noted that the number of permits or their equivalents and the number of SMTAs does not necessarily equal the number of samples/ accessions made available. Many permits/ SMTAs cover a large number of samples/ accessions.",,,,,"The fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources, including by appropriate access to them will contribute, it is hoped, to the conservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use of its components. The target therefore aims to monitor cases in which agreement on access to genetic resources and the sharing of benefits derived from their use has been reached. An increase of permits or their equivalents made available to the ABS Clearinghouse and an increase of SMTAs communicated to the Governing Body of the International Treaty will indicate an increased number of cases in which access to genetic resources has been granted and in which resulting benefits will be shared on the basis of ""mutually agreed terms"".","The information the indicator is based on is already being collected under the International Treaty. The ABS Clearinghouse is ready to start collecting permits/ equivalents. However, it should be noted that the Nagoya Protocol entered into force only recently. \ni. Which agency maintains and reports it? \n\tThe CBD Secretariat, through its ABS Clearinghouse, would be responsible for the ABS permits or their equivalents (https://absch.cbd.int/). \n\tFAO, through its Secretariat of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, would track the SMTAs (www.planttreaty.org; Aya Idemitsu (aya.idemitsu@fao.org); Francisco Lopez (francisco.lopez@fao.org).","In principle, the ""permits/ equivalents indicator"" will capture all cases of access and benefit-sharing which are covered by ABS laws of countries that are Parties to the Nagoya Protocol. \nThe SMTA indicator captures all access and benefit-sharing cases relating to material governed by the Treaty's Access and Benefit-sharing mechanism. \nNot all countries or providers of genetic resources will always report all permits / SMTAs. However, as countries become Parties to the International Treaty and the Nagoya Protocol and increasingly comply with their reporting obligations under the two instruments, reliability, coverage and comparability across countries will improve. \nSub-national estimates might require additional work",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  15.7,TRUE,15,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-15.pdf,20,Take urgent action to end poaching and trafficking of protected species of flora and fauna and address both demand and supply of illegal wildlife products.,15.7.1,Udio trgovanja divljim životinjama krivolov ili nedopušteno trgovanje,UNODC,,"The Udio trgovanja divljim životinjama krivolov ili nedopušteno trgovanje is defined as the proportion of total wildlife seizures to the total wildlife traded as evidenced by export permits issued. The different wildlife products traded and seized are compared by applying an aggregation measure. \nConcepts: \nWildlife is defined as protected wild species of flora and fauna which are legally traded and included in the CITES Appendices. With the exception of Appendix I species, most protected wildlife is legally traded. \nPoaching is defined as the illegal taking of wildlife for the purposes of international trade. \nIllicit trafficking is defined as illegal import or export of wildlife. \nExport Permits are required to export CITES-listed wildlife by every Member State (defined in Article VI of CITES, which regulates the information export permit shall contain and in Resolution Conf. 8.5, in which the Conference of the Parties to the Convention agreed on the information to be included in an export permit. \nSeizures are the result of confiscation of wildlife or wildlife products by national law enforcement authorities. Seizures occur when law enforcement authorities have suspicion that the wildlife or wildlife product they encounter is obtained or trafficked illegally. Depending on where, when and why national law enforcement authorities seize wildlife and wildlife products, the information about the seized items corresponds more or less to the variables defined by CITES in the export permit. A minimum prerequisite of a seizure report is naming the species (or lowest taxonomic level possible) of the seized specimen. Also the quantity of specimens and the unit of measure are ideally included, as well as the trade term defining the product that is seized. \nAggregation measure. The weight and number of seizures cannot be used as an indicator of poaching, because it is meaningless to compare or add the different wildlife products. Since legal trade does occur among all species products, including those listed on CITES Appendix I, it is possible to derive standard prices from import records in a common market and to determine, for example, what the relative value of rosewood is as compared to dried seahorses.",PIT = total aggregated wildlife seizures / total aggregated wildlife export permits issued \n\n Aggregation: defining a common matrix to aggregate wildlife seizures related to different species. \nFor the purpose of calculating an aggregated figure import and expert prices are associated to each species. \n\n see report for further information on methodology and formulas.,"The indicator measures the law enforcement effort to combat poaching and illegal trafficking of protected species of flora and fauna, with seizures representing law enforcement action. Since trends in seizures are meaningless without some indication of trends in demand, import and export permits issued (required under CITES) are used as an indicator of legal market demand. \nComparing seizures of wildlife and wildlife products and legal trade intends to measure the last part of the target ""address both demand and supply of illegal wildlife products"".",,,,,,,"Data on the two component of the indicators (seizures and legal trade) are regularly maintained by national authorities. As part of the obligations of the 181 States Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), countries report annually on legal trade and biennially on illegal trade, so there already exists a global repository of data for monitoring. \n\t1) The required details on the legal trade in protected wildlife and wildlife products are derived from import and export permits issued. The records of this legal trade collected by the CITES Secretariat. All CITES parties (n=180) are required to submit data annually on the export and import permits they issue - three years of non-compliance results in the sanction of being excluded from the trade in wildlife. \n\t2) Seizures of protected wildlife and wildlife products. The records of these seizures are being collected by the CITES Secretariat and the World Customs Organization. The records of this illegal trade are managed by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime under the International Consortium on Combatting Wildlife Crime partnership. The data currently maintained by UNODC includes over 160,000 seizures from 114 countries. \n\t3) Declared values for imported wildlife products. These are collected by national governments and are maintained in the global wildlife database by UNODC.",,,"This indicator can be disaggregated by Kingdom/Phylum/Class/Order/Family/Genus/Species. This would be useful if there is an interest to only consider certain groups, for example mammals or birds. Disaggregation by units or products would also be possible.","Regional datasets may be more robust. Submission of seizure data within the EU is nearly universal. Prospects exist for recruiting data through regional Wildlife Enforcement Networks, such as ASEAN-WEN.","Not all parties submit seizure data, and some do not submit comprehensive seizure data. It may be necessary to tailor a sample of countries to compare with the legal import data. \nSince a single indicator is sought for poaching across a wide range of species, this indicator will necessarily encompass a wide range of trends among disparate species. If the indicator is disaggregated for specific species, it cannot be applied if there is no legal trade which is the case for Appendix I species (for example elephants). \nHowever, for some of these species direct poaching indicators exist, such as the MIKE system for elephants.",Male members of several species are more likely to be poached.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  15.8,TRUE,15,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-15.pdf,22,"By 2020, introduce measures to prevent the introduction and significantly reduce the impact of invasive alien species on land and water ecosystems and control or eradicate the priority species.",15.8.1,Udio zemalja koje uvode relevantne nacionalne propise i adekvatne resurse za prevenciju ili kontrolu invazivnih stranih vrsta,UNEP,,"This indicator measures the management response globally, by tracking invasive alien species legislation for control and prevention at national and international levels. The more countries with Invasive Alien Species (IAS) and Biosecurity related legislation, the greater the global commitment to controlling the threat to biodiversity from IAS. The larger the number of IAS-relevant international policies, and the greater the level of national commitment to these, the greater the global commitment to controlling IAS. The more international agreements a country is party to the more strongly committed the country is to controlling IAS.","Data for this indicator were produced as follows: any national legislation relevant to controlling invasive alien species was identified for each of the 191 Parties to the CBD. Legislation was considered relevant to the prevention of alien species introductions or to control of invasive alien species if it applied to multiple taxonomic groups and was not exclusively intended to protect agriculture. If two separate sets of legislation within a country covered plants and animals, the date of the more recent legislation was used.","The projection of the current trend of adoption of national policies on invasive alien species projects a nonsignificant increase by 2020, with a slowing of the rate of increase in the proportion of countries adopting such legislation. The adoption of national and international policies on invasive alien species may be a first step to combatting the spread of invasive alien species. \nStrengths \n\tThis indicator covers 191 countries worldwide. Caveats \n\tThe adoption of legislation does not necessarily indicate the existence of regulations or policy to implement the legislation or how successful such implementation has been on the ground There still remains a need for further indicator development to make this link clearer. \n\tLegislation does not necessarily capture all efforts against invasive alien species that are happening at the national level. \nCurrent storyline \n55% of countries that are Party to the CBD have overarching national legislation to prevent, control and/or limit the spread and impact of invasive alien species. \n\n see report for related information \n Adoption of national legislation relevant to the prevention or control of invasive alien species. Source: McGeoch et al. (2010) Global indicators of alien species invasion: threats, biodiversity impacts and responses. Diversity and Distributions, 16, 95-108. \nThis indicator measures the adoption of national legislation relevant to the prevention or control of invasive alien species. The global trend in policy response has been positive for the few last decades and, since the publication of GBO3, the adoption of policies against invasive alien species has significantly increased. \nAs reported in 2010, 55% of the countries signatories to the CBD have enacted invasive alien species relevant national legislation, and most CBD parties were signatory to at least one of ten other multilateral agreements that cover IAS in some form. Among these countries 8% are signatory to all 10 international agreements (McGeoch et al. 2010). For example, the Council of Europe has been developing and adopting codes of conduct addressing some key pathways (e.g. horticulture, botanic gardens, zoos, hunting, or fishing) of invasive alien species. Moreover, once the European regulation on invasive alien species is fully adopted, it will have major implications for neighbouring countries, but also at a world scale, as the European institution is a major partner for global trade. \nProducing this indicator nationally... \nAll countries (191 in 2010) party to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) were included in this calculation. Ten multinational environment related agreements were used to quantify trends in the adoption of IAS related policy. National legislation related to the prevention, management and control of IAS was recorded including year of enactment, type of legislation (prevention, management etc.) and the data analysed to calculate the indicator. \nUse at the national level... \nAs reported in 2010, 55% of the countries signatories to the CBD have enacted invasive alien species relevant national legislation, and most CBD parties were signatory to at least one of ten other multilateral agreements that cover IAS in some form. Among these countries 8% are signatory to all 10 international agreements (McGeoch et al. 2010). For example, the Council of Europe has been developing and adopting codes of conduct addressing some key pathways (e.g. horticulture, botanic gardens, zoos, hunting, or fishing) of invasive alien species. Moreover, once the European regulation on invasive alien species is fully adopted, it will have major implications for neighbouring countries, but also on a global scale, as the European institution is a major partner for global trade. \nFuture developments... \nThis indicator was first calculated in 2010 and there has been no update since. Plans are to update this baseline, enhance it and make it available for global, regional and national use.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"For further information on Adoption of national legislation relevant to the prevention or control of invasive alien species indicator visit http://www.bipindicators.net/iaslegislationadoption \nMcGeoch, M.A., Butchart, S.H.M., Spear, D., Marais, E., Kleynhans, E.J., Symes, A., Chanson, J. and Hoffmann, M. Diversity and Distributions 16, 95-108",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  15.9,FALSE,15,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-15.pdf,25,"By 2020, integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values into national and local planning, development processes, poverty reduction strategies and accounts.",15.9.1,Napredak prema nacionalnim ciljevima utvrđenim u skladu s Aichi Biodiversity Target 2 Strateškog plana za biološku raznolikost 2011-2020,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  15.a,FALSE,15,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-15.pdf,26,Mobilize and significantly increase financial resources from all sources to conserve and sustainable use biodiversity and ecosystems.,15.a.1,Službena pomoć u razvoju i javni izdaci za očuvanje i održivo korištenje biološke raznolikosti i ekosustava,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  15.b,TRUE,15,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-15.pdf,27,"Mobilize significant resources from all sources and at all levels to finance sustainable forest management and provide adequate incentives to developing countries to advance such management, including for conservation and reforestation.",15.b.1,Službena pomoć u razvoju i javni izdaci za očuvanje i održivo korištenje biološke raznolikosti i ekosustava,OECD,,Total official development assistance (ODA,http://www.oecd.org/dac/dac-glossary.htm#ODA) commitments to the forestry sector (purpose code 312,http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/purposecodessectorclassification.htm). Data expressed in US dollars at the average annual exchange rate.,,ODA is the accepted measure of international development co-operation. In this case it captures aid in support of forestry projects and programmes in developing countries.,,,,,,,"Data are compiled by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development from returns submitted by its member countries and other aid providers. Data are available here, http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/data.htm.",,,"The data are generally obtained on an activity level, and include numerous parameters. They can thus be disaggregated by provider and recipient country; by type of finance, and by type of resources provided.","Data are available for essentially all high-income countries, and for an increasing number of middle-income aid providers.",The data only cover official concessional support from donor countries.,"OECD/DAC data also include among others a ""gender equality"" marker (http://www.oecd.org/investment/stats/37461060.pdf) which identifies individual projects that have a clear gender dimension.",,See Measuring aid to forestry (http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/41699327.pdf).,"OECD, 2015 Aid to the Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Rural Development sectors (http://www.oecd.org/development/stats/agriculture.htm).",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  15.c,TRUE,15,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-15.pdf,18,"Enhance global support for efforts to combat poaching and trafficking of protected species, including by increasing the capacity of local communities to pursue sustainable livelihood opportunities.",15.c.1,Udio trgovanja divljim životinjama krivolov ili nedopušteno trgovanje,UNODC,,"The proportion of traded wildlife that was poached or illicitly trafficked is defined as the proportion of total wildlife seizures to the total wildlife traded as evidenced by export permits issued. The different wildlife products traded and seized are compared by applying an aggregation measure. \nConcepts: \nWildlife is defined as protected wild species of flora and fauna which are legally traded and included in the CITES Appendices. With the exception of Appendix I species, most protected wildlife is legally traded. \nPoaching is defined as the illegal taking of wildlife for the purposes of international trade. \nIllicit trafficking is defined as illegal import or export of wildlife. \nExport Permits are required to export CITES-listed wildlife by every Member State (defined in Article VI of CITES, which regulates the information export permit shall contain and in Resolution Conf. 8.5, in which the Conference of the Parties to the Convention agreed on the information to be included in an export permitiv). \nSeizures are the result of confiscation of wildlife or wildlife products by national law enforcement authorities. Seizures occur when law enforcement authorities have suspicion that the wildlife or wildlife product they encounter is obtained or trafficked illegally. Depending on where, when and why national law enforcement authorities seize wildlife and wildlife products, the information about the seized items corresponds more or less to the variables defined by CITES in the export permit. A minimum prerequisite of a seizure report is naming the species (or lowest taxonomic level possible) of the seized specimen. Also the quantity of specimens and the unit of measure are ideally included, as well as the trade term defining the product that is seized. \nAggregation measure. The weight and number of seizures cannot be used as an indicator of poaching, because it is meaningless to compare or add the different wildlife products. Since legal trade does occur among all species products, including those listed on CITES Appendix I, it is possible to derive standard prices from import records in a common market and to determine, for example, what the relative value of rosewood is as compared to dried seahorses.",PIT = total aggregated wildlife seizures / total aggregated wildlife export permits issued \n\n Aggregation: defining a common matrix to aggregate wildlife seizures related to different species. \nFor the purpose of calculating an aggregated figure import and expert prices are associated to each species. \n\n see report for further information on methodology and formulas.,"The indicator measures the law enforcement effort to combat poaching and illegal trafficking of protected species of flora and fauna, with seizures representing law enforcement action. Since trends in seizures are meaningless without some indication of trends in demand, import and export permits issued (required under CITES) are used as an indicator of legal market demand. \nComparing seizures of wildlife and wildlife products and legal trade intends to measure the last part of the target ""address both demand and supply of illegal wildlife products"".",,,,,,,"Data on the two component of the indicators (seizures and legal trade) are regularly maintained by national authorities. As part of the obligations of the 181 States Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), countries report annually on legal trade and biennially on illegal trade, so there already exists a global repository of data for monitoring. \n\t4) The required details on the legal trade in protected wildlife and wildlife products are derived from import and export permits issued. The records of this legal trade collected by the CITES Secretariat. All CITES parties (n=180) are required to submit data annually on the export and import permits they issue - three years of non-compliance results in the sanction of being excluded from the trade in wildlife. \n\t5) Seizures of protected wildlife and wildlife products. The records of these seizures are being collected by the CITES Secretariat and the World Customs Organization. The records of this illegal trade are managed by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime under the International Consortium on Combatting Wildlife Crime partnership. The data currently maintained by UNODC includes over 160,000 seizures from 114 countries. \n\t6) Declared values for imported wildlife products. These are collected by national governments and are maintained in the global wildlife database by UNODC.",,,"This indicator can be disaggregated by Kingdom/Phylum/Class/Order/Family/Genus/Species. This would be useful if there is an interest to only consider certain groups, for example mammals or birds. Disaggregation by units or products would also be possible.","Regional datasets may be more robust. Submission of seizure data within the EU is nearly universal. Prospects exist for recruiting data through regional Wildlife Enforcement Networks, such as ASEAN-WEN.","Not all parties submit seizure data, and some do not submit comprehensive seizure data. It may be necessary to tailor a sample of countries to compare with the legal import data. \nSince a single indicator is sought for poaching across a wide range of species, this indicator will necessarily encompass a wide range of trends among disparate species. If the indicator is disaggregated for specific species, it cannot be applied if there is no legal trade which is the case for Appendix I species (for example elephants). However, for some of these species direct poaching indicators exist, such as the MIKE system for elephants.",Male members of several species are more likely to be poached.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  16.1,TRUE,16,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-16.pdf,2,Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.,16.1.1,"Broj žrtava ubojstva s namjerom na 100,000 stanovnika, prema spolu i starosti",UNODC,Goal 16 TST Working Group,"From UNODC:\nIntentional homicide is defined as the unlawful death inflicted upon a person with the intent to cause death or serious injury (Source: International Classification of Crime for Statistical Purposes, ICCS 2015); the rate is defined as the total count of victims of intentional homicide divided by the total resident population, expressed per 100,000 population.\n\n From Goal 16 TST Working Group: \n This indicator is a composite indicator constructed by collecting two numbers, deaths from intentional homicides and deaths from conflict to measure ""peace"" with respect to target 1 ' ""Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related deaths everywhere."" The rates of intentional homicide and conflict-related deaths should be reported separately, as combining them into one single indicator would risk conflating two distinct phenomena with differing root causes as well as varying levels of precision in measurement. Still, they are useful complements to each other as, by construction, they are exclusive and non-overlapping (ie. By design, their conjunction does not double count violent deaths). Intentional homicide is defined as the unlawful death inflicted upon a person with the intent of cause death or serious injury (Source: International Classification of Crime for Statistical Purposes (ICCS), 2015). ICCS recommends that intentional homicides include: \n\tMurder \n\tHonour killing \n\tSerious assault leading to death \n\tDeath as a result of terrorist activities \n\tDowry-related killings \n\tFemicide \n\tInfanticide \n\tVoluntary manslaughter \n\tExtrajudicial killings \n\tKillings caused by excessive force by law enforcement/state officials \nConflict-related deaths refer to those deaths caused by warring parties, including, but not limited to, those caused by traditional battlefield fighting and bombardments (battle-related deaths). The term conflict-related death is broader than the term ""battlerelated death"" as it includes killings that amount to war crimes, such as targeting of civilians or of military 'hors combat', killings associated with a conflict (but not accompanied by a battle between warring parties) such as one-sided killings, pogroms and genocides. Following the ICCS definition (see homicides at left) death as a result of terrorist activities would be included in intentional homicides. For both intentional homicides and conflict-related deaths, rates are defined as the total count in deaths in a calendar year, respectively, divided by the total resident population for the year, expressed per 100,000 population. The denominator (100,000 population) has been adopted globally by law enforcement as the standard for comparable measurement.",,"From UNODC:\nThis indicator is widely used at national and international level to measure the most extreme form of violent crime and it also provides a direct indication of lack of security. Security from violence is a pre-requisite for individuals to enjoy a safe and active life and for societies and economies to develop freely. Intentional homicides occur in all countries of the world and this indicator has a global applicability. Monitoring intentional homicides is necessary to better assess their causes, drivers and consequences and, in the longer term, to develop effective preventive measures. \nIf data are properly disaggregated (as suggested in the ICCS), the indicator can identify the different type of violence associated with homicide: inter-personal (including partner and family-related violence), crime (including organized crime and other forms of criminal activities) and political (including terrorism, hate crime). \nThe interpretation of this indicator is straightforward also for non-specialised users.\n\n From Goal 16 TST Working Group: \n As described above, this composite indicator is comprised of two forms of violent deaths. Intentional homicides occur in all countries of the world and have global applicability, while conflict-related deaths occur in countries with ongoing conflicts/wars. Peace is a much broader concept than violent deaths, however, it is difficult to measure many aspects of peace (threats and the fear of violence, insecurity, and other forms of violence, including damages to persons and property). Deaths due to violence are universally and easily understood, are frequently monitored and are comparable with only minor discrepancies in interpretation, largely due to the finality of death. Monitoring intentional homicides is necessary to better assess their causes and consequences and, in the longer term, to develop effective prevention measures. It is based on statistical data routinely produced by law enforcement authorities and/or public health institutions, with a high degree of international comparability. Conflict-related deaths measure the direct impact of conflicts on populations in terms of losses of life.",,,,,,,"From UNODC:\nTwo separate sources exist at country level: a) criminal justice system; b) public health/civil registration. UNODC collects and publishes data from criminal justice systems through its long-lasting annual data collection mandated by the UN General Assembly (UN Crime Trends Survey, UN-CTS); WHO collects and publishes data produced by public health/civil registration. \nUNODC and WHO are working together to harmonize data and procedures to produce joint UNODC-WHO homicide estimates at country, regional and global level. \nConsidering data collected by both UNODC and WHO, national data on homicide are available for 174 countries (at least one data point between 2009-2013) . Time series data on homicide suitable for monitoring are available for 141 countries (at least 3 data points, the most recent between 2011-2013). \nWhen national data on homicide are not available, estimates are produced by WHO.\n\n From Goal 16 TST Working Group: \n Sources for both components of the composite indicator vary, largely because intentional homicides are considered in the purview of law enforcement, whereas conflict-related deaths are typically a matter of state. \nOn intentional homicide, two separate sources exist at country level: a) criminal justice system; b) public health/civil registration. UNODC collects and publishes data from criminal justice systems through its annual data collection (UN Crime Trends Survey, UN-CTS); WHO collects and publishes data produced by public health/civil registration. Homicide data can be produced by two separate and independent sources and this can be used to assess accuracy of national data. Usually, for countries where data from both sources exist, a good level of matching between the sources is recorded (see UNODC Global Study on Homicide, 2013). Considering data collected by both UNODC and WHO, national data on homicide are available for 174 countries (at least one data point after 2009). Time series data on homicide suitable for monitoring are available for 141 countries (at least 3 data points, the most recent for 2011 or later).When national data on homicide are not available, estimates are produced by WHO. \nResearch projects like the Homicide Monitor (Igarape Institute) and the Global Burden of Armed Violence (Geneva Declaration) collect and report global data on intentional homicides. \nWhilst the global risk of violent death in armed conflict is generally lower than the global risk of death due to homicide, armed conflict can have deeper effects, destroying lives, livelihoods and substantial human costs, particularly in protracted internal conflict situations (see the Global Burden of Armed Violence, 2012, 2015). \nIn general, no national data sources exist on conflictrelated deaths, for a number of reasons. Often, normal registration systems are heavily affected by the presence of conflict. Additionally, actors on both sides of a conflict may have incentives for misreporting, deflating or inflating casualties. Estimates of conflict-related deaths, often displaying wide variations, are produced at international level: conflict death databases include the IISS Armed Conflict Database, the Armed Conflict Location and Event Database, the Correlates of War Project, the UCDP Battle-Related Deaths Dataset, and WHO estimates of deaths by cause. Data from these sources, though they may vary on estimates, exist for all major (>1000 battle deaths) and minor (>25 battle deaths per year) conflicts since 1945 (see UCDP). The Global Burden of Armed Violence (Geneva Declaration) compares and collects conflict-related deaths from multiple sources. \nAdditionally, at the local and regional level, observatories and other civil society initiatives provide data on conflict incidence and deaths. Ushahidi and CEWARN are two examples, though many more exist. \nThese initiatives can be, but need not be, the only way to monitor conflict-related deaths. They have proven working methodologies, that could be adopted by regional, international, multilateral, national or other actors.",,,"From UNODC:\nRecommended disaggregations for this indicator are: \n\tsex and age of the victim and the perpetrator \n\trelationship between victim and perpetrator(intimate partner, other family member, acquaintance, etc.) \n\tmeans of perpetration (firearm, blunt object, etc.) \n\tsituational context/motivation (organized crime, intimate partner violence, etc.).\n\n From Goal 16 TST Working Group: \nOn intentional homicide, possible disaggregation include: \n\tsex and age of victim and perpetrator \n\trelationship between victim and perpetrator (intimate partner, other family member, acquaintance, etc.) \n\tmeans of perpetration (firearm, blunt object, etc.) \n\tsituational context/motivation (organized crime, intimate partner violence, etc.) \n\tby region \n\tby population group \n\tby displacement and statelessness status. \nOn conflict-related-deaths, possible disaggregations include: \n\tsex and age of victim \n\tpopulation group of victim \n\tby location \n\tsex and age of perpetrator (where possible) \n\tmeans of death (firearm, explosive device, artillery/heavy weaponry, UAV, etc.) \n\tcivilian versus military status of victim.","At international level, data on intentional homicides are routinely collected and disseminated by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the World Health Organization. UNODC partners with regional organizations in the collection and dissemination of homicide data, respectively with Eurostat in Europe and with the Organisation of American States in the Americas.","From UNODC:\nThe ICCS provides important clarifications on the definition of intentional homicide. In particular, it states that the following killings are included in the count of homicide: \n\tMurder \n\tHonour killing \n\tSerious assault leading to death \n\tDeath as a result of terrorist activities \n\tDowry-related killings \n\tFemicide \n\tInfanticide \n\tVoluntary manslaughter \n\tExtrajudicial killings \n\tKillings caused by excessive force by law enforcement/state officials \nFurthermore, the ICCS provides indications on how to distinguish between intentional homicides, killings directly related to war/conflict and other killings that amount to war crimes. \nThe fact that homicide data are typically produced by two separate and independent sources at national level (criminal justice and public health) represents a specific asset of this indicator, as the comparison of the two sources is a tool to assess accuracy of national data. Usually, for countries where data from both sources exist, a good level of matching between the sources is recorded (see UNODC Global Study on Homicide, 2013). \nData on homicides produced by public health authorities are guided by the International classification of diseases (ICD-10), which is very similar to the definition of intentional homicide provided by the ICCS.\n\n From Goal 16 TST Working Group: \nMeasuring deaths and their attribution is not easy, but it can be done. \nICCS provides guidance on how to distinguish between intentional homicides, killings directly related to war/conflict and other killings that amount to war crimes. Data on homicides produced by public health authorities are guided by the International classification of diseases (ICD-10), which is very similar to the definition of intentional homicide provided by the ICCS. \nNon-intentional homicide is another crime that can provide information on violence prevalence. Though, it mostly refers to cases of killings due to negligent behaviours rather than to intentional violence. For nine countries where data are available, 95% of all non-intentional homicide are due to vehicular homicide.","From UNODC:\nWhen data are properly disaggregated, intentional homicide can be used to quantify gender-based killings, a relevant indicator to monitor violence against women. Currently, 68 countries have reported homicide data disaggregated by type of perpetrator to UNODC (at least one data point after 2009).\n\n From Goal 16 TST Working Group: \nWhen properly disaggregated, both forms of violence can be used to quantify gender-based killings (as intentional homicides and as conflict-related deaths), a relevant indicator to monitor violence against women. Currently, 68 countries have reported intentional homicide data disaggregated by type of perpetrator to UNODC (at least one data point after 2009). Both of the composite indicators can inform on targets associated with Global Goal 5.",,"At global level, intentional homicide is the most prevalent type of violent death. In 2012, the ratio between victims of conflict/war and victims of intentional homicide varied between one to five to one to ten (uncertainty due to variability of estimates of deaths related to war/conflict produced respectively by WHO and Uppsala Conflict Data Program). \nNon-intentional homicide is another crime that can provide information on violence prevalence. Though, it mostly refers to cases of killings due to negligent behaviours rather than to intentional violence. For nine countries where data are available to \nUNODC, 95% of all non-intentional homicide are due to vehicular homicide, so the concept of non-intentional homicide is not relevant for monitoring the target.","UNODC homicide database, Global Study on Homicide 2011; \nUNODC, Global Study on Homicide 2013; \nWHO-UNDP-UNODC, Global Status Report on Violence Prevention 2014); \nUNODC, International Classification of Crime for Statistical Purposes, 2015",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  16.1,TRUE,16,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-16.pdf,6,Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.,16.1.2,"Smrti povezane sa sukobima na 100 000 stanovnika, po spolu, dobi i uzroku",Goal 16 TST Working Group,OHCHR,"From Goal 16 TST Working Group, OHCHR:\nIntentional homicide is defined as the unlawful death inflicted upon a person with the intent of cause death or serious injury (Source: International Classification of Crime for Statistical Purposes, 2015). In a narrow sense, conflict-related deaths refer to those deaths caused by warring parties directly related to combat, such as traditional battlefield fighting and bombardments. In a broader sense, conflict-related deaths also include killings that amount to war crimes, such as targeting of civilians or of military 'hors combat'. The rates are defined as the total count of intentional homicides and conflict-related deaths, respectively, divided by the total resident population, expressed per 100,000 population.\n\n From United Nations Mine Action Service: \n The count of conflict-related deaths caused by mines/ERW should include ""individuals killed or injured in incidents involving devices detonated by the presence, proximity, or contact of a person or a vehicle, such as all antipersonnel mines, antivehicle mines, abandoned explosive ordnance (AXO), unexploded ordnance (UXO), and victim-activated IEDs.""",,"From Goal 16 TST Working Group, OHCHR:\nThese indicators refer to two forms of violent deaths (intentional homicide and conflict-related deaths). Intentional homicides occur in all countries of the world and have global applicability, while conflict-related deaths occur in countries afflicted by wars. \nThe rates of intentional homicide and conflict-related deaths should be kept separate, as combining them into one single indicator would risk collating two distinct phenomena and unequal sources of data. In particular, the quality of data on conflictrelated deaths is inevitably affected by the difficulties of producing accurate statistics in situations of armed conflict. \nMonitoring intentional homicides is necessary to better assess their causes and consequences and, in the longer term, to develop effective prevention measures. It is based on statistical data routinely produced by law enforcement authorities and/or public health institutions, with a high degree of international comparability. \nConflict-related deaths measure the direct impact of conflicts on populations in terms of losses of life. Whilst the global risk of violent death in armed conflict is generally lower than the global risk of homicidal violence, in affected countries armed conflict destroys lives and exerts substantial human costs, particularly in protracted internal conflict situations.\n\n From United Nations Mine Action Service: \n The presence of mines/ERW in conflict and post-conflict contexts is devastating for people and communities. These hazards cause grievous injury and death, impede peace operations, and hamper post-conflict reconstruction and development efforts. \nFindings from the M&E Mechanism for the UN Strategy 2013-2018 (UN M&E Mechanism) illustrate the deadly risk posed by mines/ERW in affected countries and territories in which the UN operates; in particular, the disproportionate impact of explosive hazards on the civilians who constitute more than half of the casualties from mines/ERW. The regular monitoring of mine/ERW casualty data through the global mechanism of the Sustainable Development Goals will significantly enhance the capacity of affected countries and territories including Member States, UN entities, and civil society to understand the scope of these threats and effectively mitigate the harms they cause.",,,,,,,"From Goal 16 TST Working Group, OHCHR:\nOn intentional homicide, two separate sources exist at country level: a) criminal justice system; b) public health/civil registration. UNODC collects and publishes data from criminal justice systems through its annual data collection (UN Crime Trends Survey, UN-CTS); WHO collects and publishes data produced by public health/civil registration. \nUNODC and WHO are working together to harmonize data and procedures to produce joint UNODC-WHO homicide estimates at country, regional and global level. \nConsidering data collected by both UNODC and WHO, national data on homicide are available for 174 countries (at least one data point after 2009) . Time series data on homicide suitable for monitoring are available for 141 countries (at least 3 data points, the most recent for 2011 or later).When national data on homicide are not available, estimates are produced by WHO. \nIn general, no national data sources exist on conflict-related deaths, as normal registration systems are heavily affected by war operations. Estimates of conflictrelated deaths, often displaying wide variations, are produced at international level: conflict death databases include the IISS Armed Conflict Database, the UCDP BattleRelated Deaths Dataset, PRIO Battle-Deaths Data and WHO estimates of deaths by cause.\n\n From United Nations Mine Action Service: \n Many member states affected by mines/ERW have casualty reporting systems in place. The most common, in use in 80% of mine action programmes globally, is the Information Management System for Mine Action (IMSMA).",,,"From Goal 16 TST Working Group, OHCHR:\nRecommended disaggregations for this indicator are: \n\tBy context (intentional homicide and conflict-related deaths) \nOn intentional homicide, possible disaggregations include: \n\tsex and age of victim and perpetrator \n\trelationship between victim and perpetrator(intimate partner, other family member, acquaintance, etc.) \n\tmeans of perpetration (firearm, blunt object, etc.) \n\tsituational context/motivation (organized crime, intimate partner violence, etc.) \n\tby region \n\tby population group \n\tby displacement and statelessness status. \nOn conflict-related-deaths, possible disaggregations include: \n\tsex and age of victim and perpetrator \n\tcivilian versus military status of victim.\n\n From United Nations Mine Action Service: \n Recommended disaggregation for this indicator: \n\tVictim sex and age (Man, Woman, Boy, Girl) \n\tDevice type (See below) \n\tVictim type (Civilian, Non-civilian, Operator) \nData from the M&E Mechanism for the UN Strategy for Mine Action 2013-2018 indicates that at least 86% of casualty data is available with sex and age disaggregation in participating countries and territories.","From Goal 16 TST Working Group, OHCHR:\nAt international level, data on intentional homicides are routinely collected and disseminated by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the World Health Organization. Several regional organizations collect and disseminate homicide data, especially in the Americas (OAS and IDB) and in Europe (Eurostat). Conflict death databases, at the international level, include the IISS Armed Conflict Database, the UCDP Battle-Related Deaths Dataset, and PRIO Battle-Deaths Data and WHO estimates of deaths by cause database. National level datasets exist for some countries.\n\n From United Nations Mine Action Service: \n The Landmine and Cluster Munitions Monitor provides several research products including annual reports on a variety of indicators related to mines, cluster munitions, and other ERW, including casualty data. The UN Interagency Working Group for Mine Action currently tracks casualty data in participating countries and territories as part of the M&E Mechanism for the UN Strategy for Mine Action 2013-2018.","The ICCS provides important clarifications on the exact definition of intentional homicide for statistical purposes. In particular, it states that the following killings need to be included in the count of homicide: \n\tMurder \n\tHonour killing \n\tSerious assault leading to death \n\tDeath as a result of terrorist activities \n\tDowry-related killings \n\tFemicide \n\tInfanticide \n\tVoluntary manslaughter \n\tExtrajudicial killings \n\tKillings caused by excessive force by law enforcement/state officials \nFurthermore, the ICCS provides indications on how to distinguish between intentional homicides, killings directly related to war/conflict and other killings that amount to war crimes. \nHomicide data can be produced by two separate and independent sources and this can be used to assess accuracy of national data. Usually, for countries where data from both sources exist, a good level of matching between the sources is recorded (see UNODC Global Study on Homicide, 2013). \nData on homicides produced by public health authorities are guided by the International classification of diseases (ICD-10), which is very similar to the definition of intentional homicide provided by the ICCS. \nData on conflict-related deaths are characterised by large variability due to uncertainty of estimates.","From Goal 16 TST Working Group, OHCHR:\nWhen properly disaggregated, intentional homicide can be used to quantify genderbased killings, a relevant indicator to monitor violence against women. Currently, 68 countries have reported homicide data disaggregated by type of perpetrator to UNODC (at least one data point after 2009).\n\n From United Nations Mine Action Service: \n Findings from the UN M&E Mechanism align with findings from other research demonstrating the disproportionate impact of mins/ERW on boys and men. Boys and men constitute 91% of mine/ERW casualties in countries participating in the M&E Mechanism. This trend is consistent across civilians, non-civilians, and operators; and it is mirrored across age and gender distribution data among beneficiaries of victim assistance services.",,"From Goal 16 TST Working Group, OHCHR:\nAt global level, intentional homicide is the most prevalent type of violent death. In 2012, the ratio between victims of conflict/war and victims of intentional homicide varied between one to five to one to ten (uncertainty due to variability of estimates of deaths related to war/conflict produced respectively by WHO and Uppsala Conflict Data Program). \nNon-intentional homicide is another crime that can provide information on violence prevalence. Though, it mostly refers to cases of killings due to negligent behaviours rather than to intentional violence. For nine countries where data are available, 95% of all non-intentional homicide are due to vehicular homicide. As situations of conflict affect a limited number of countries at a given time, the indicator is relevant for certain country contexts.\n\n From United Nations Mine Action Service: \n Different types of devices which cause death/injury: \n\tAntipersonnel mines \n\tAntivehicle mines \n\tAbandoned explosive ordnance (AXO) \n\tUnexploded ordnance (UXO) \n\tVictim-activated improvised explosive devices (IEDs).","From Goal 16 TST Working Group, OHCHR:\nUNODC, Global Study on Homicide 2011; UNODC, Global Study on Homicide 2013; WHO-UNDP-UNODC, Global Status Report on Violence Prevention 2014; \nIgarape Institute, Homicide Monitor, 2015 (http://homicide.igarape.org.br/ ); UNODC, International Classification of Crime for Statistical Purposes, 2015\n\n From United Nations Mine Action Service: \n \nThe Monitoring & Evaluation Mechanism for the UN Strategy for Mine Action 2013-2018. \nThe Landmine and Cluster Munitions Monitor (http://www.the-monitor.org/en-gb/home.aspx) \nGeneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (http://www.gichd.org/)",,,,,,,,,United Nations Mine Action Service,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  16.1,FALSE,16,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-16.pdf,9,Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.,16.1.3,"Udio stanovništva koje je bilo izloženo (a) fizičkom nasilju, (b) psihološkom nasilju i (c) seksualnom nasilju u posljednjih 12 mjeseci",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  16.1,FALSE,16,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-16.pdf,10,Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.,16.1.4,Udio osoba koje se osjećaju sigurnim kada same šetaju područjem u kojem žive,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  16.2,FALSE,16,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-16.pdf,11,"End abuse, exploitations, trafficking and all forms of violence against and torture of children.",16.2.1,Udio djece u dobi od 1 do 17 godina koja su u posljednjih mjesec dana doživjela bilo kakvu fizičku kaznu i/ili psihološku agresiju od svojih roditelja/skrbnika,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  16.2,TRUE,16,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-16.pdf,11,"End abuse, exploitations, trafficking and all forms of violence against and torture of children.",16.2.2,"Broj žrtava trgovine ljudima na 100 000 stanovnika, prema spolu, dobi i obliku eksploatacije",UNODC and OHCHR,Goal 16 TST Working Group,"From UNODC and OHCHR: \n Trafficking in persons is defined as the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs (The United Nations Protocol to Prevent Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children, which is supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime). \nThe number of victims is defined as the number of detected and estimated number of non-detected adult women and men and girls and boys (18-) who have been trafficked for different forms of trafficking in persons. The estimated ratio between the number of detected victims and the estimated number of non-detected victims can be used to estimate the total number of human trafficking victims at national, regional and global levels. In addition, the ratio can be used to measure the efficiency of countries to detect trafficking victims. \n\n From Goal 16 TST Working Group: \n This is an outcome indicator derived from administrative data. The indicator is computed as the total number of identified victims of trafficking divided by population (per 100,000 persons). This indicator directly measures exploitation and trafficking, which are inadequately captured by the other proposed indicators. These human rights abuses affect both adults and children, and States have existing obligations to prevent them for both population groups.",,"From UNODC and OHCHR: \n Human trafficking for different forms of exploitation represents a major violation of victim's human rights, dignity and inclusion to the society. It has an impact on a person's health and opportunities, it creates economic inequalities and it is a threat to the personal security. The regular production of figures on this indicator will allow the monitoring of the impact of the anti-trafficking measures to the level of trafficking at national, regional and global levels. It also helps to assess the capacity of countries to detect and consequently support victims of trafficking. It will raise awareness on the most prevalent forms of trafficking in persons in different parts of the world. \n\n From Goal 16 TST Working Group: \n Trafficking in persons is a universal form of modern-day slavery. Trafficked persons are often victims of physical, sexual and psychological violence. The demand for cheap labour and sexual services, coupled with criminal practices that seek to profit from the exploitation of vulnerable people, is its main driver. Addressing this most egregious violation of human rights would significantly contribute to one of the main priorities of post-2015 namely to ""leave no one behind"" and has its legal basis in the UN Convention on Transnational Organized Crime and the optional protocol on human trafficking.",,,,,,,"From UNODC and OHCHR: \n Currently, the available and country specific number of detected victims is collected yearly from the Member States using a specific questionnaire. It is published in the UNODC biennial Global Report on Trafficking in Persons. Data are available for about 130 countries, since 2007. The data is disaggregated for age, sex and forms of exploitation. The estimated number of non-detected victims can be established by applying methodologies developed to measure the estimated number of different hidden populations (e.g. Respondent Driven Sampling and Network Scale-up Method). These methodologies have been tested with different forms of trafficking in persons. \n\n From Goal 16 TST Working Group: \n A primary data source will be administrative and judicial records maintained by competent national authorities, which may include police, labour inspectors, health care providers, educational institutions, national human rights institutions and ombudspersons, as well as civil society organizations. Current data sources include the UNODC Global Report on Trafficking in Persons, the U.S. Department of State's Trafficking in Persons Report; IOM Trafficked Migrants Assistance Database.",,,"From UNODC and OHCHR: \n Recommended disaggregation for this indicator is: \n\tsex of the victim \n\tage of the victim \n\tform of exploitation \n\n From Goal 16 TST Working Group: \n Data for this indicator should be disaggregated by sex, age, population group (ethnicity, minority or indigenous status) and nationality of the victim and, where relevant, perpetrator, by geographic location, and by type of perpetrator (private enterprise, individual, etc.).","From UNODC and OHCHR: \n UNODC is the only international organization which is regularly collecting and disseminating data on the number of detected victims of human trafficking at the global level. Selected data on specific forms of trafficking in persons are collected and disseminated by ILO, UNICEF and UNHCR. Regional and geographically defined data is collected by IOM and some regional organizations such as EU. The Academia has developed a list of local studies assessing the hidden part of trafficking for specific geographical areas and forms of exploitation. \n\n From Goal 16 TST Working Group: \n At the international level, the ILO compiles data on trafficking, slavery, exploitation and forced labour. Data on trafficked persons is published by UNODC in its biennial Global Report on Trafficking in Persons, and in the IOM Human Trafficking Database.","From UNODC and OHCHR: \n In 2013 and 2014, UNODC has conducted two Expert Group Meetings with the academia on measuring different hidden populations. The work has resulted in a methodology to measure the hidden part of trafficking in persons in order to estimate the number of non-detected victims of trafficking. The methodology has been used in some studies and will be soon tested by UNODC. \n\n From Goal 16 TST Working Group: \n As it relies upon reports of individual events, this indicator may not be fully reliable. It may underestimate (or sometimes, though more rarely, overestimate) the true number of victims. These human rights abuses are, by their nature, hidden and in most instances, the number of cases reported will depend on awareness of victims of their rights, access to information, motivation and perseverance of civil society organizations and the media. \nData are compiled separately for each human rights abuse and aggregated. In order to reduce the total number of global indicators, this indicator is proposed to monitor targets 5.2 (violence against women), 8.7 (elimination of the worst forms of child labour and forced labour), 16.1 (violence), 16.2 (violence against children) and 16.4 (organised crime). Organized crime often includes significant human rights abuses, including trafficking, slavery, exploitation and forced labour, against both children and adults. Victims of such crimes are among the most invisible in official statistics, so it is vital that these abuses are monitored within the SDG framework to ensure that no one is left behind.","From UNODC and OHCHR: \n Trafficking in persons has a negative impact particularly on women. Currently, 70 % of detected victims of trafficking in persons are female: adult women (49%) and girls (21%). The international community stressed this aspect already when they adopted the international instrument to address trafficking which is titled: The UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children.",,"From UNODC and OHCHR: \n The General Assembly in resolution A/RES/64/293 mandated UNODC to report every two years on trafficking in persons flows and patterns, at the national, regional and international levels. \nAs to the results of current data collection, we can see that between 2007 and 2013, there is a slight increase in the number of detected victims per 100,000 population. There should be a continuous monitoring of this trend and it should be combined with the number of non-detected victims to understand the changes in the severity of trafficking in persons.","From UNODC and OHCHR: \n UNODC Global Report on Trafficking in Persons 2009, 2012 and 2014, www.unodc.org/glotip.html \nUNODC, International Classification of Crime for Statistical Purposes, 2015",5.2,8.7,16.1,16.2,16.4,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  16.2,TRUE,16,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-16.pdf,13,"End abuse, exploitations, trafficking and all forms of violence against and torture of children.",16.2.3,Udio mladih žena i muškaraca u dobi od 18 do 29 godina koji su doživjeli seksualno nasilje do 18 godine,UNICEF,,"This indicator provides the proportion of young women and men aged 18-24 years who report having experienced any sexual violence by age 18. It is calculated by dividing the number of young women and men aged 18-24 years who report having experienced any sexual violence by age 18 by the total number of young women and men aged 18-24 years, respectively, in the population.",,"While it is recognized that this indicator captures only one of the gravest forms of violence against children rather than being inclusive of all forms, it can be considered a proxy indicator that reflects a key aspect of the change we want to observe in order to achieve the target of elimination of VAC. \nThe right of children to protection from all forms of violence is enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its Optional Protocols. 'Sexual violence' as defined in General Comment No. 13 on the Convention of the Rights of the Child, accessible here: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/docs/CRC.C.GC.13_en.pdf",,,,,,,Household surveys such as DHS have been collecting data on this indicator in low- and middleincome countries since the late 1990s.,,,"Data are available by age, marital status, place of residence and wealth quintiles.","UNICEF has estimates for the percentage of young women aged 18-24 years who report having experienced any sexual violence by age 18, disaggregated by age, marital status, 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 43 countries.6 UNICEF has estimates for the percentage of young men aged 18-24 years who report having experienced any sexual violence by age 18, disaggregated by age, marital status, place of residence and wealth quintile by country for approximately 5 countries.","The availability of comparable data remains a serious challenge in this area as many data collection efforts have relied on different study methodologies and designs, definitions of sexual violence, samples and questions to elicit information. A further challenge in this field is underreporting, especially when it comes to reporting on experiences of sexual violence among boys and men.","As this indicator is disaggregated by sex, it is well-suited for analysis of gender equality issues.",,UNICEF website on sexual violence data: \nhttp://data.unicef.org/child-protection/sexual-violence.html,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  16.3,TRUE,16,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-16.pdf,15,Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.,16.3.1,Udio žrtava nasilja u proteklih 12 mjeseci koji su svoju viktimizaciju prijavili nadležnim tijelima ili drugim službeno priznatim mehanizmima za rješavanje sukoba,UNODC,OHCHR,"Number of victims of violent crime (physical or sexual assault) in the previous 12 months who reported their last incident to competent authorities or other officially recognized conflict resolution mechanisms, as a percentage of all victims of crime in the previous 12 months. \nCompetent authorities includes police, prosecutors or other authorities with competencies to investigate certain crimes (such as corruption or fraud), while 'other officially recognised conflict resolution mechanisms' may include a variety of institutions with a role in the informal justice or dispute resolution (e.g. tribal or religious leaders, village elders, community leaders), provided their role is officially recognised by state authorities.",,"Reporting to competent authorities is the first step for crime victims to seek justice: if competent authorities are not alerted they are not in a condition to conduct proper investigations and administer justice. However, lack of trust and confidence in the ability of the police or other authorities to provide effective redress, or objective and subjective difficulties in accessing them, can influence negatively the reporting behaviour of crime victims. As such, reporting rates provide a direct measure of the confidence of victims of crime in the ability of the police or other authorities to provide assistance and bring perpetrators to justice. Reporting rates provide also a measure of the 'dark figure' of crime, that is the proportion of crimes not reported to the police. Trends in reporting rates of violent crime can be used to monitor public trust and confidence in competent authorities on the basis of actual behaviours and not perceptions.",,,,,,,"Victimisation surveys provide direct information on this indicator, as they collect information on the experience of violent crime and on whether the victim has reported it to competent authorities. According to a recent review conducted by UNODC-INEGI Centre of Excellence on crime statistics, 72 countries have implemented at least one national victimisation after 2009 (in 43 of these countries the victimisation survey has been conducted by the national statistical office or another public institution/ministry). In addition, 9 African countries have already implemented or are in the process of implementing a victimisation survey module as part of the Strategy for Harmonisation of Statistics for Africa (SHaSA).",,,Recommended disaggregations for this indicator are: \n\tsex \n\ttype of crime \n\tethnicity \n\tmigration background \n\tcitizenship,UNODC collects data on crime reporting rates through the long-standing annual data collection mandated by the UN General Assembly UN-CTS. The UN-CTS has established a network of focal points (presently covering 125 countries and territories). Data on crime reporting rates are currently available for approximately 35 countries..,"The target relates to the multidimensional concepts of rule of law and access to justice and at least two indicators are required to cover the main elements of access to justice and efficiency of the justice system. The proposed indicator 16.3.1 covers the aspect of access to justice although it doesn't cover civil or administrative disputes. The indicator as formulated is a standard indicator widely published when a victimization survey is undertaken, but further work could be conducted to test the feasibility to expand the indicator to cover administrative disputes.","Independently of the level of violent victimization of women, it provides information on whether there are gender disparities on the attitude to freely and safely report their victimization experiences. For example, female victims of domestic violence are more reluctant to report to authorities their experience for different reasons, including fear of consequences and lack of trust in authorities. An increasing level of reporting indicates that measures have been successful to raise awareness that violent behaviours are unacceptable and/or reporting channels for victims of violent crime have improved and/or trust towards authorities has increased; moreover, higher reporting means that criminal justice institutions are in a better position to enforce the law and ensure justice.",,Reporting rates of crimes are known to vary widely by type of crime: they are usually higher in relation to property crimes as victims seek to re-obtain stolen goods or for insurance purposes.,"In 2010 UNODC-UNECE published a Manual on Victimization Surveys, that provides technical guidance on the implementation of such surveys, on the basis of good practices developed at country level. \nUNODC, International Classification of Crime for Statistical Purposes, 2015",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  16.3,TRUE,16,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-16.pdf,16,Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.,16.3.2,Neosuđeni pritvorenici kao udio ukupne zatvorske populacije,UNODC,Goal 16 TST Working Group,"The total number of persons held in detention who have not yet been sentenced, as a percentage of the total number of persons held in detention, on a specified date. 'Sentenced' refers to persons subject to criminal proceedings who have received a decision from a competent authority regarding their conviction or acquittal. For the purposes of the indicator, persons who have received a 'non-final' decision (such as where a conviction is subject to appeal) are considered to be 'sentenced'.",,"The indicator signifies overall respect for the principle that persons awaiting trial shall not be detained in custody. This, in turn, is premised on aspects of the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. From a development perspective, extensive use of pre-sentence detention when not necessary for reasons such as the prevention of absconding, the protection of victims or witnesses, or the prevention of the commission of further offences, can divert criminal justice system resources, and exert financial and unemployment burdens on the accused and his or her family. Measuring the relative extent to which pre-sentence detention is used can provide the evidence to assist countries in lowering such burdens and ensuring its proportionate use.",,,,,,,"UNODC collects data on prisons through its annual data collection (UN-CTS). Data on unsentenced and total detainees from the UN-CTS are available for 114 countries. The country coverage can improve if other sources (research institutions and NGOs) are included (data for additional 70 countries are available, bringing the total to 184 countries).",,,Recommended disaggregation for this indicator are: \n\tage and sex \n\tlength of pre-trial (unsentenced) detention,"At international level, data on the number of persons held in unsentenced detention are available from the long-standing United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems mandated by the UN General Assembly (UN-CTS). At regional level, data are available from a number of collection initiatives including Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics (SPACE) and OAS Observatory on Citizen Security Data Repository.",The target relates to the multidimensional concepts of rule of law and access to justice and at least two indicators are required to cover the main elements of access to justice and efficiency of the justice system. The proposed indicator 16.3.2 covers the efficiency of the justice system.,These data can be disaggregated by sex and indicate whether different levels of unsentenced detention exist for men and women.,,"The indicator is most commonly measured using data from administrative records. National decisions that need to be taken when collecting data for the indicator include the definition of 'detention', as well as the day of the year on which the data is collected. Data from all individual places of detention (which may be managed by different government authorities) must be aggregated and used for overall calculation of the indicator.","Definitions and other metadata are provided in the UN-Crime Trends Survey (UN-CTS) Guidance on collection of information on detained persons, as well as example data collection sheets, are provided in the United Nations Manual for the Development of a System of Criminal Justice Statistics, as well as (for children), in the UNODC/UNICEF Manual for the Measurement of Juvenile Justice Indicators.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  16.4,TRUE,16,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-16.pdf,18,"By 2030, significantly reduce illicit financial and arms flows, strengthen the recovery and return of stolen assets and combat all forms of organized crime.",16.4.1,Ukupna vrijednost unutarnjih i vanjskih nezakonitih financijskih tokova (u tekućim američkim dolarima),Goal 16 TST Working Group,OHCHR,"From Goal 16 TST Working Group and OHCHR: \n Illicit financial flows (IFFs) are commonly defined as the transferred monies that is earned, transferred or utilized through illicit means, into or out of a country. They include legally earned value, money and monetized instruments that are transferred illicitly or value, money and monetized instruments that are acquired through illegal activities, such as the proceeds of crimes, including corruption and tax evasion. They can also capture tax avoidance and trade misinvoicing. \nAlthough the UN Economic Commission for Africa, UNDP, Global Financial Integrity and others have produced global country-by-country estimates for illicit financial flows, more work on methodologies would be required. \nOverview of the main methods of estimating illicit financial flows (adapted from the Mbeki Report of the High-level Panel on Illicit Financial Flows from Africa (http://www.uneca.org/iff)): In terms of the methodologies used to estimate IFFs, several empirical models have been used to estimate both the magnitude of IFFs and their economic implications for developing countries. These models and the analytic methods underlying them deserve further scrutiny. In particular, four methods have dominated the empirical literature: the Hot Money Method, the Dooley Method, the World Bank Residual Method and the IMF Direction of Trade Statistics (DOTS)'based Trade Mispricing Method. The latter two remain the most widely used. The Hot Money Method records IFFs through net errors and omissions in payment balances. The Dooley Method relies on the privately held foreign assets reported in the balance of payments that do not generate investment income. The World Bank Residual Method estimates IFFs as the difference between the source of funds (external debt and foreign direct investment) and the use of funds (current account deficit and reserves). The Trade Mispricing Model assesses IFFs by looking for disparities arising from overinvoicing of imports and underinvoicing of exports after adjusting for ordinary price differences. In this model, imports are generally recorded after adjusting for the cost of insurance and freight, while exports are usually valued free-on-board. To provide the most thorough estimates of IFFs, Global Financial Integrity has combined the World Bank Residual Method and the Trade Mispricing Model in its computations. ECA has used the Trade Mispricing Model (see Mbeki report). \nAn Overview of the Analytical Methodologies Utilized by Global Financial Integrity to Study Illicit Financial Flows (adapted from their website: http://www.gfintegrity.org/issues/illicit-financial-flows-analytical-methodologies-utilizedglobal-financial-integrity/): Global Financial Integrity (GFI) estimates that nearly US$1 trillion of unrecorded money flows out of developing countries annually. There are three forms of unrecorded money moving across borders: \n\tCorrupt: Proceeds of bribery and theft by government officials. \n\tCriminal: Proceeds of drug trading, human trafficking, counterfeiting, contraband, and myriad forms of additional activities. \n\tCommercial: Proceeds arising from import and export transactions conducted so as to manipulate customs duties, VAT taxes, income taxes, excise taxes, or other sources of government revenues. \nIn analyzing IFFs, GFI utilizes sources of data and analytical methodologies that have been used by international institutions, governments, and economists for decades. Basically, these data sources and methodologies are providing information on gaps'gaps in balance of payments data and gaps in trade data. Where recorded sources and uses of funds in balance of payments data do not match, the difference is net errors and omissions, indicating an inflow or outflow that was not recorded. Where bilateral trade data does not match (after adjusting for freight and insurance in the data of the importing country) this indicates reinvoicing of transactions between export from one country and import into another country. Some reviewers of GFI's data sources and analytical methodologies have raised questions, which GFI is pleased to address as follows: \n\tGFI well recognizes that statistics can be flawed, due to errors in collection, recording, or conveying. Precisely the same point can be made about virtually every other economic analysis ever undertaken. GFI uses the best data available, data that has been collected, reported, and recorded by governments for decades according to international guidelines issued by the IMF. \n\tThe reliability and accuracy of trade statistics of developing countries are regularly assessed through the IMF's Data Quality Assessment Framework under the Data component of the Reports on Standards and Codes. These ratings show that for all assessed developing countries (about 72) the quality is ""very high"" or ""high"". \n\tGFI does not suggest that every single unrecorded transaction is illicit; however, the vast majority of unrecorded transactions are illicit. \n\tGFI does not use net illicit outflows and illicit inflows. In countries where unrecorded outflows and unrecorded inflows roughly balance, it would be a mistake to consider that such a country has no problem with unrecorded flows. There is no such concept as ""net crime."" Indeed, in GFI's view, illicit outflows and illicit inflows should be added, since both sides of the equation generally produce harm. \n\n From UNODC: \n There is no single, agreed definition of illicit financial flows (IFF), but essentially these are financial flows generated by methods, practices and crimes aiming to transfer financial capital in contravention of national or international laws. When anlyzing IFF the following components are generally included: proceeds of crime, proceeds of corruption (national or international corruption), money laundering (including from proceeds of crime), tax evasion, theft of state assets, and market and regulatory abuses.",,"From Goal 16 TST Working Group and OHCHR: \n The indicator measures an important aspect of target 16.4. The indicator also covers other aspects of this target, such as revenues emanating from illicit arms sales and organized crime \n\n From UNODC: \n IFF have a negative impact on society in many respects, including governance, economic growth and human security. The illicit economy generated by IFF can exacerbate conflict for resources, pose impediments to sustainable economic growth and promote human right abuses. For instance, illicit markets are characterized by greater violence and though violence occurs more commonly in connection with illegal than with legal economic activity.",,,,,,,"From Goal 16 TST Working Group and OHCHR: \n GFI undertakes macroeconomic analyses of IFFs and detailed analyses of trade misinvoicing by commodity groups. GFI consistently use the following: IMF: \n\t1. Balance of payments data, contributing to the analysis of net errors and omissions. \n\t2. Direction of Trade Statistics (DOTS), enabling analyses of discrepancies in trade between pairs of reporting countries. \nFor other economic and trade analyses, GFI draws from a selection of sources including the following: \n\tWorld Bank: Providing data on debt, contributing to the analysis of broad capital flight. \n\tUN COMTRADE: Providing data on bilateral trade in commodity groups. \n\tUS Dept. of Commerce: Providing data on trade transactions by Harmonized System coding categories. \n\tEuropean Statistics: Providing data on trade transactions by Harmonized System coding categories. \nGFI believes that the estimates arising from these data sources and analytical methodologies are very conservative, for several reasons: \n\tDOTS data records trade in merchandise only. It does not include trade in intangibles, services, licenses, royalties, etc., now estimated to comprise more than 25 percent of all global trade. \n\tDOTS data reveals only transactions that have been re-invoiced between export and import. It does not reveal transactions where price manipulations have been included in the same invoice exchanged between exporters and importers. \nNone of the data sources adequately reveal cash transactions across borders, particularly those used in criminal pursuits. http://www.gfintegrity.org/issues/data-by-country/ \n\n From UNODC: \n A global repository of IFF data is not currently available. Some national or global estimates for the volume of illicit financial flows may exist, such as those compiled by the NGO Global Financial Integrity, but these are quite controversial. To establish a global indicator of illicit financial flows, methodologies would have to be further refined and a common definition agreed upon.",,,"From Goal 16 TST Working Group and OHCHR: \n Data could be disaggregated, depending on the methodology, to IFFs resulting from trade misinvoicing and other means of transfers. \n\n From UNODC: \n The indicator can have a higher political relevance if it is disaggregated by the broad components which source IFF: \n\tOrganized crime activities \n\tCorruption \n\tTax evasion \n\tOther criminal or administrative offences",From Goal 16 TST Working Group and OHCHR: \n Data is estimate country-by-country and can be aggregated to reginal and global levels.,,,,,Global Financial Integrity (http://www.gfintegrity.org/issues/data-by-country/) \nMbeki Report of the High-level Panel on Illicit Financial Flows from Africa (http://www.uneca.org/iff)),,,,,,,,,UNODC,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  16.4,FALSE,16,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-16.pdf,20,"By 2030, significantly reduce illicit financial and arms flows, strengthen the recovery and return of stolen assets and combat all forms of organized crime.",16.4.2,"Udio zaplijenjenog, pronađenog ili predanog oružja čije je nezakonito podrijetlo ili okolnosti otkrilo ili utvrdilo nadležno tijelo u skladu s međunarodnim instrumentima",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  16.5,TRUE,16,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-16.pdf,21,Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms.,16.5.1,Udio osoba koje su imale barem jedan kontakt s javnim službeniko i koji su platili mito javnom službeniku ili ih je javni službenik tražio mito tijekom proteklih 12 mjeseci ,UNODC, OHCHR,"Percentage of persons who paid at least one bribe (gave a public official money, a gift or counter favour) or were asked for a bribe by these public officials, to a public official in the last 12 months, as a percentage of persons who had at least one contact with a public official in the same period. Bribery is the undue advantage (money, gift or a service) requested/offered by/to a public official in exchange for a special treatment. Administrative bribery is often intended as the type of bribery affecting citizens or businesses in their dealings with public administrations and/or civil servants: this form of bribery affects most countries of the world and can be measured through sample surveys that focus on the experience of bribery.",,"Corruption is an antonym of equal accessibility to public services and of correct functioning of the economy; as such, it has a negative impact on fair distribution of resources and development opportunities. Besides, corruption erodes public trust in authorities and the rule of law; when administrative bribery becomes a recurrent experience of large sectors of the population and businesses, its negative effects have an enduring negative impact on democratic processes and justice. By providing a direct measure of the experience of bribery, this indicator provides an objective metrics of corruption, a yardstick to monitor progress in the fight against corruption.",,,,,,,"Household corruption surveys and victimisation surveys with module on bribery. The first large scale victimisation surveys were implemented in the 1970s and the programme of International Crime Victimisation Surveys (ICVS, 6 waves between 1989 and 2010) contributed to disseminate this instrument worldwide. According to a recent review conducted by UNODC-INEGI Centre of Excellence on crime statistics, 72 countries have implemented at least one national victimisation survey after 2009 (in 43 of these countries the victimisation survey has been conducted by national statistical office or another public institution/ministry). In addition, 9 African countries have already implemented or are in the process of implementing a victimisation survey module as part of the Strategy for Harmonisation of Statistics for Africa (SHaSA). \nUNODC collects prevalence data on bribery from surveys (since 2009) through the annual data collection UN-CTS.",,,Recommended disaggregation for this indicator are: \n\tage and sex \n\ttype of official,"Various programmes and initiatives have produced data on the experience of corruption by the population. Programme of surveys on the experience of corruption have been supported by international organizations, including by UNODC, the World Bank and UNDP. Surveys on corruption experience are also implemented by NGOs and the private sector: for example, the 'Global Corruption Barometer' is published annually by Transparency International and it includes survey data on the experience of bribery for a large set of countries. \nAt national level, surveys on the experience of corruption are conducted by an increasing number of countries, sometimes as part of the regular production by official statistics. Data on bribery can also be collected as part of general victimization surveys.","This indicator provides solid information on the experience of bribery, typically occurring in the interaction between businesses and the public sector in the context of basic service delivery/transactions, while it does not cover other forms of corruption, such as 'grand corruption', trading in influence or abuse of power.",Disaggregation of data by sex of both bribe-payers and public officials is important to assess different behaviours and vulnerability to bribery by sex.,,,"Documentation of corruption surveys (analytical reports and methodological information) is available on the UNODC website. Methodological documentation to develop and implement surveys on corruption can also be found in the UNODC-UNECE Manual on Victimisation surveys. \nUNODC, International Classification of Crime for Statistical Purposes, 2015",,,,,,,,,Goal 16 TST Working Group,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  16.5,FALSE,16,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-16.pdf,22,Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms.,16.5.2,Udio poslovnih subjekata koji su imali barem jedan kontakt s javnim službenikom i koji su platili mito javnom službeniku ili ih je javni službenik tražio mito tijekom proteklih 12 mjeseci,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  16.6,TRUE,16,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-16.pdf,23,"Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.",16.6.1,Osnovni rashodi države po sektorima kao udio izvorno odobrenog proračuna (ili proračunskim kodovima ili slično),Goal 16 TST Working Group,,"This indicator can be based on Indicator PI-2 of the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) dataset: composition of expenditure outturn compared to original approved budget, considers (i) the variation between approved budget and final expenditure for the year for each major function (comparable to a sector) (ii) variation in expenditure from the original budget by economic classification and (iii) the average amount charged to the contingency reserve over the last 3 years.",,"PEFA is the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability programme started in 2001 to develop a country-led agenda on public financial management reform, ie. a government-led reform programme for which analytical work, reform design, implementation and monitoring reflect country priorities and are integrated into governments' institutional structures. PEFA Indicator PI-2 on the composition of expenditure out-turn compared to original approved budget works at the administrative level to calculate variance for the main budgetary heads (votes) of ministries, departments and agencies, which are included in the approved budget.",,,,,,,Data for 149 countries (collected on 398+ occasions) available at www.pefa.org.,,,This indicator can disaggregated by different sectoral expenditures (for each major function and by economic classification).,Data for 149 countries (collected on 398+ occasions) available at www.pefa.org.,,,,,https://www.pefa.org/en/content/methodological-guidance-and-practical-tools,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  16.6,TRUE,16,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-16.pdf,23,"Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.",16.6.2,Udio stanovništva koje je zadovoljno sa svojim posljednjim iskustvom s javim službama,OHCHR,,The indicator is calculated as the number of respondents replying that they were satisfied or very satisfied with their last experience of accessing a public service divided by the total number of respondents. The data may be weighted to reflect the general population.,,"In order to be effective and accountable, intuitions must be responsive to the needs of the population. This indicator will require the use of perception-based population surveys and will collect relevant data on the lived experience of individuals seeking access to and obtaining basic public services, such as health care, education, water and sanitation, as well as services provided by the police and judicial system.",,,,,,,"The main source of data is perception surveys. Such surveys are conducted in an increasing number of countries, and often include a number of measures of quality, which may include physical facilities in which the service was accessed, whether the service met expectations, timeliness, quality and comprehensiveness of information provided, professionalism and courtesy of public officials, responsiveness to queries or complaints, relevant outcomes, affordability/ value for money and specific issues of accessibility for targeted population groups, e.g. physical accessibility or availability of information in minority languages. \nSuch perception surveys include the World Value Survey, Gallup, Afrobarometer and the other Barometers (see below), and surveys conducted by NSOs at the national level.",,,"Data should be disaggregated by type of public service accessed (e.g. health, education, housing, social services, police, courts). Data should also be disaggregated by geographic location and the ethnicity, sex, age, income, disability status, religion, migratory or displacement status, civil status, minority or indigenous status, sexual orientation and gender identity of the user of the service.","In Africa, the approach has already been applied and reported by several NSOs using the SHaSA questionnaire. Nine countries have already started to collect data using the Harmonised Module on Democratic Governance, with as many as 20 expressing interest. Questions on the Harmonised Module ask specifically about rates of access to, and trust in, the following services/institutions: public service (in general), courts of justice, police, public hospitals and clinics, public schools, tax/customs authorities, social security system, state media, Parliament, army, President, Prime Minister (where applicable), Mayor (where applicable). \nRegional Barometers (e.g. 19 countries in Africa in 2014 amongst 36 in total since the Afrobarometer process started, 10 Arab states in the Arabbarometer, 18 Latin American states in the Latinobarometer, 13 Asian states with three surveys and a further five with at least one survey each) ask about experience of accessing essential government services, including public schools, public clinics and hospitals, registration offices (birth certificate, driver's licence, passport, voter's card, permits, etc), water, sanitation and electricity. Questions also ask about ease of access, including the need for bribes, gifts or favours. \nThe World Values Survey asks respondents in 60 countries (for the 6th Wave, 2010- 2014) about confidence in institutions including the armed forces, the police, the courts, government and parliament. There are also questions on the extent to which government should take responsibility to ensure that everybody is provided for. Private sector data collectors already conduct surveys in a range of countries ' Gallup's World Poll conducts representative surveys face to face in over 140 countries covering the emerging and developed world, including questions on confidence in the judicial system, in the local police, in the military and in government. Edelman's Trust Barometer breaks down questions of trust amongst a range of institutions.",,The indicator may capture gender differences as they are reflected in the comparative experience of men and women in accessing different sorts of services.,,,SHaSA Harmonised Module on Democratic Governance. \nGlobal Barometer Study: http://www.jdsurvey.net/gbs/gbs.jsp \nWorld Values Survey: http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs.jsp \nGallup World Poll: http://www.gallup.com/services/170945/world-poll.aspx,1.4,3.8,4.1,4.2,4.a,7.1,10.2,11.1,,,,,,16.3,16.6,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  16.7,TRUE,16,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-16.pdf,26,"Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.",16.7.1,"Udjeli radnih mjesta u nacionalnim i lokalnim institucijama, uključujući (a) zakonodavna tijela; (b) javne službe; i (c) pravosuđe, u usporedbi s raspodjelom na nacionalnoj razini, prema spolu, dobi, osobama s invaliditetom i skupinama stanovništva",Goal 16 TST Working Group,OHCHR,"From Goal 16 TST Working Group:\nThis indicator focuses on the representativeness aspect of the target, but the presence of diversity also conduces to inclusivity and responsiveness of decision-making. \nThe indicator is calculated as the number of public service positions held by members of the target group divided by the total number of such positions.\n\n From OHCHR: \nTarget groups should be identified at national level in an inclusive, participatory process, with the direct involvement of marginalised and minority groups themselves. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) has made clear that identification as a member of a particular ethnic group 'shall, if no justification exists to the contrary, be based upon self-identification by the individual concerned.' This principle also applies to other population groups. Target groups may include persons with disabilities, ethnic groups, LGBTI persons, indigenous peoples, religious minorities, linguistic minorities, youth, older persons, or other groups under-represented in the national context. The indicator is calculated as the number of public service positions held by members of the target group divided by the total number of such positions.",,"From Goal 16 TST Working Group:\nIn order that decision-making be responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative, it is important to ensure diversity in representation at all levels of State institutions (central, regional and local). \nArticle 25(c) ICCPR provides that citizens should have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in their country. General Comment 25 of the Human Rights Committee elaborates that access to public service should be based on equal opportunity and general principles of merit, and further states that the provision of secured tenure would ensure that persons holding public service positions are free from political interference or pressures. \nArticle 7(c) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) stipulates that States should take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the political and public life of the country and, in particular, ensure to women, on equal terms with men, the right to participate in the formulation of government policy and the implementation thereof and to hold public office and perform all public functions at all levels of government.\n\n From OHCHR: \nIn order that decision-making be responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative, it is important to ensure diversity in representation at all levels of State institutions (central, regional and local). \nArticle 25(c) ICCPR provides that citizens should have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in their country. General Comment 25 of the Human Rights Committee elaborates that access to public service should be based on equal opportunity and general principles of merit, and further states that the provision of secured tenure would ensure that persons holding public service positions are free from political interference or pressures. \nArticle 7(c) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) stipulates that States should take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the political and public life of the country and, in particular, ensure to women, on equal terms with men, the right to participate in the formulation of government policy and the implementation thereof and to hold public office and perform all public functions at all levels of government. \nIn cases where a group is very under-represented or has experienced historical discrimination, temporary special measures including minimum quotas on representation may be introduced to redress such discrimination. In some circumstances, such as linguistic minorities, ensuring access to public services for the group may require over-representation of that group in public service posts.",,,,,,,From Goal 16 TST Working Group:\nThe primary data source is administrative and employment records at national level in accordance with the obligations arising from ICCPR and CEDAW.\n\n From OHCHR: \nThe primary data source is administrative and employment records at national level.,,,"From Goal 16 TST Working Group:\nDisaggregation by sex and disability are most immediately feasible and region of origin could be specified. Population group would be defined at the country level, and could include ethnic or religious groups, indigenous populations, etc. One particular disaggregation compares with Goal 5.5, namely local government by sex. [Comparison to national distributions may require affirmative action in some settings to ensure that certain populations are effectively included.] \nData for this indicator should also be disaggregated by State institution (executive, parliament, government department, judiciary, police, etc.), level of position (senior management, middle management, professional, entry level, support staff) and type of contract (short-term, temporary, permanent).\n\n From OHCHR: \nData for this indicator should be disaggregated by State institution (executive, parliament, government department, judiciary, police, etc.), level of position (senior management, middle management, professional, entry level, support staff) and type of contract (shortterm, temporary, permanent). \nThe indicator should be calculated for women and for each target group. Target groups should be defined at the national level, but could include ethnic groups, older persons, persons with disabilities, religious groups, minorities or indigenous peoples, LGBTI persons, etc.","From Goal 16 TST Working Group:\nAt the international level, the ILO compiles data on female share of employment by occupation, by level of position, and by private/public sector. UN Women and the InterParliamentary Union compile statistical information about women parliamentarians, women members of cabinet and other relevant information.\n\n From OHCHR: \nAt the international level, the ILO compiles data on female share of employment by occupation, by level of position, and by private/public sector. UN Women and the InterParliamentary Union compile statistical information about women parliamentarians, women members of cabinet and other relevant information.","From Goal 16 TST Working Group:\nFairer representation of all population groups in public service positions at all levels renders decision-making by public bodies more legitimate and more responsive to the concerns of the whole population. \nWhile the indicator, particularly disaggregated by seniority and contract type, provides a good indication of progress to overcome historical or ongoing discrimination, it cannot detect tokenism where official job titles mask a lack of influence in practice, or other forms of discrimination within the public service that may affect the ability of members of target populations to influence decision-making. Perception surveys or discrimination testing could supplement this indicator to detect such issues. \nIn order to reduce the total number of global indicators, this indicator is proposed to monitor targets 5.5 (women's full and effective participation), 10.2 (political inclusion), and 16.7 (responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making).\n\n From OHCHR: \nFairer representation of all population groups in public service positions at all levels renders decision-making by public bodies more legitimate and more responsive to the concerns of the whole population. \nWhile the indicator, particularly disaggregated by seniority and contract type, provides a good indication of progress to overcome historical or ongoing discrimination, it cannot detect tokenism where official job titles mask a lack of influence in practice, or other forms of discrimination within the public service that may affect the ability of members of target populations to influence decision-making. Perception surveys or discrimination testing could supplement this indicator to detect such issues.","From Goal 16 TST Working Group:\nThe indicator is highly gender 'relevant, disaggregation should be possible by sex within more sophisticated systems and so the indicator may capture gender differences as they are reflected in the comparative experience of men and women in representation. The indicator is also relevant for Goal 5.\n\n From OHCHR: \nThe indicator specifically considers representation of women. Data on each target group should also be disaggregated by sex to ensure that multiple grounds of discrimination can be detected.",,,From OHCHR: \nILO statistics database: http://www.ilo.org/global/statistics-and-databases/lang--en/index.htm \nUN Women data on women in government positions : http://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/leadership-and-political-participation/facts-andfigures \nInter-Parliamentary Union data on women in parliament: http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/world.htm,5.5,10.2,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  16.7,FALSE,16,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-16.pdf,28,"Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.",16.7.2,"Udio stanovništva koje vjeruje da je donošenje odluka inkluzivno i odgovorno, prema spolu, dobi, invaliditetu i skupini stanovništva",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  16.8,TRUE,16,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-16.pdf,29,Broaden and strengthen the participation of developing countries in the institutions of global governance.,16.8.1,Udio članova i glasačkih prava zemalja u razvoju u međunarodnim organizacijama,Goal 16 TST Working Group,,"Representation and participation of developing countries in international organizations, including international financial institutions, is often below their relative weight in the world. This indicator would measure the representativeness of developing countries in international organizations. This indicator would be easily measurable by way of data collected by international organizations. \nThe indicator would require a list of international organizations that would be included in the calculation. The indicator could be calculated by taking the simple average of the international organizations on the list. The phrase ""global governance"" in the target would suggest that the list of international organizations should be limited to organizations with a global mandate, which could, for example, include the governing bodies of all agencies, funds and programmes of the UN system (including and the IMF and the World Bank), but also the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). \nThis is a global indicator, not a national indicator. National Statistical Offices need not be involved. The rating CBB from the survey is, therefore, odd, especially the C rating because the data on membership and voting rights is readily available, for example, from the IMF and the World Bank. \nThis indicator also relates to: \n\tTarget 10.6 (which focuses on global international economic and financial institutions). \n\tTarget 16.3 (rule of law at international level). \n\tTarget 16.7 (which focuses on inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels)",,"Representation and participation of developing countries in international organizations, including international financial institutions, is often below their relative weight in the world. This indicator would measure the representativeness of developing countries in international organizations. \nAn adjustment could be made to compare the percentage of members or voting rights of developing countries in IFIs to their share in global population (e.g. for governing bodies of UN funds and programmes) or GDP (e.g. for the IMF and World Bank). This would allow compensation for the fact that the indicator should not increase until reaching 100%.",,,,,,,Administrative data of international organizations.,,,Can be disaggregated by international organization,"This is a global indicator, not a regional or national indicator.",,,,,,10.6,16.3,16.7,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  16.9,TRUE,16,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-16.pdf,31,"By 2030, provide legal identity for all, including birth registration.",16.9.1,"Udio djece mlađe od 5 godina čije je rođenje registrirano pri tijelu civilne vlasti, prema starosti",UNICEF,Goal 16 TST Working Group,"From UNICEF: \n This indicator provides the proportion of children under the age of five whose births are reported as being registered with the relevant national civil authorities. It is calculated by dividing the number of children under the age of five whose births are reported as being registered with the relevant national civil authorities by the total number of children under the age of five in the population. \n\n From Goal 16 TST Working Group: \nThe indicator is calculated as the number of children whose births have been registered with a civil authority divided by the total number of children. \n\n From UNFPA: \nPercentage of births that are registered within a certain period of time after birth (one month, one year, five years of age) in a civil registration and vital statistics system or from household surveys.","From UNFPA: \n Number of births registered within a given period of time after birth (a month, a year, 0-4 years) in a given calendar year / Total number of births in a given calendar year \n\n Method of measurement: data should be available and could be obtained from civil registration and vital statistics systems. Civil registration administrative data could be linked to estimates of the expected number of newborns. In countries with deficient CRVS systems, data is collected via household surveys (DHS and MICS). Questions are asked about registration status of children born in the five years preceding the data of the survey. The numerator of this indicator includes children whose birth certificate was seen by the interviewer or whose mother or care-taker says the birth has been registered. Data are also often presented for other age groups such as infants or children under 5 years of age. \nMethod of estimation: currently UNICEF produces and publish estimates of birth registration for children under five using both CRVS and household surveys data. Alternative data sources to be considered are the United Nations Demographic Yearbook and the World Population Prospects produced by UNPD-DESA. A new methodology and set of procedures need to be put in place to produce the desired estimate of birth registration for under one year of age (see justifications below).","From UNICEF: \n Registering children at birth is the first step in securing their recognition before the law, safeguarding their rights, and ensuring that any violation of these rights does not go unnoticed. \nChildren without official identification documents may be denied health care or education. Later in life, the lack of such documentation can mean that a child may enter into marriage or the labour market, or be conscripted into the armed forces, before the legal age. In adulthood, birth certificates may be required to obtain social assistance or a job in the formal sector, to buy or prove the right to inherit property, to vote and to obtain a passport. \n\n From Goal 16 TST Working Group: \nArticle 7 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) provides that all children should be registered immediately after birth and have the right from birth to a name and the right to acquire a nationality. Article 8 CRC further provides that, where a child is illegally deprived of some or all of the elements of his or her identity, States Parties shall provide appropriate assistance and protection, with a view to re-establishing speedily his or her identity. This indicator is therefore measured for all children, defined as persons under the age of 18. \nWhere births are not registered, children may be unable to obtain a birth certificate, which can result in denial of access to public services including education, health and social services, despite the human rights obligations of States to provide these without discrimination. Lack of registration may also result in early marriage or early entry to the labour market, before the child has reached the minimum legal age. Registering children at birth is the first step in securing their recognition before the law, safeguarding their rights, and ensuring that any violation of these rights does not go unnoticed.",,,,,,,"From UNICEF: \n Censuses, vital registration systems and household surveys such as UNICEF-supported MICS and DHS. \n\n From Goal 16 TST Working Group: \nData for this indicator are currently collected at the international level by UNICEF though the Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS), as well as through Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) and national civil registry systems. Data are currently available mainly for children under 5.",,From UNFPA: \n Annual,"From UNICEF: \n Data are available by sex, age, place of residence, wealth quintiles ad other background characteristics. \n\n From Goal 16 TST Working Group: \nThe indicator should be disaggregated by sex of the child and age at the time of registration geographic location. \n\n From UNFPA: \nAs agreed by the Sustainable development Agenda and indicators but including at least, place of residence (U/R), sex of the child, mothers education, household wealth.","From UNICEF: \n UNICEF has estimates for the percentage of children under the age of five whose births are reported as being registered with the relevant national civil authorities, disaggregated by age, sex, 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 162 countries. \n\n From Goal 16 TST Working Group: \nUNICEF maintains a global database on the issue since 2003. Comparable data are available for more than 160 countries. http://data.unicef.org/child-protection/birth-registration","From UNICEF: \n The number of children who have acquired their right to a legal identity is collected mainly through censuses, civil registration systems and household surveys. Civil registration systems that are functioning effectively compile vital statistics that are used to compare the estimated total number of births in a country with the absolute number of registered births during a given period. However, the systematic recording of births in many countries remains a serious challenge. In the absence of reliable administrative data, household surveys have become a key source of data to monitor levels and trends in birth registration. In most low- and middle-income countries, such surveys represent the sole source of this information. \n\n From Goal 16 TST Working Group: \nWhile this indicator measures, and current data availability is concentrated on, children under 5 whose birth have been registered, there is emerging consensus that the collection should allow for disaggregation to identify birth registration of children under 1 as well as overall rates of registration for under 5. \nData availability is limited for children over the age of 5, but measuring this indicator for all children is an important element of measuring progress in increasing birth registration, as well as ensuring that older children are not left behind. \nIn order to reduce the total number of global indicators, this indicator is proposed to monitor targets 4.1, 4.2 (universal access to education), and 16.9 (legal identity for all).","From UNICEF: \n As this indicator is disaggregated by sex, it is well-suited for analysis of gender equality issues.",,From UNICEF: \n UNICEF website on birth registration data: http://data.unicef.org/child-protection/birth-registration.html \n\n From Goal 16 TST Working Group: \nhttp://data.unicef.org/child-protection/birth-registration,From Goal 16 TST Working Group: \nhttp://data.unicef.org/child-protection/birth-registration,4.1,4.2,,,,,,,UNFPA,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  16.1,TRUE,16,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-16.pdf,33,"Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements.",16.10.1,"Broj potvrđenih slučajeva ubojstava, otmica, prisilnih nestanaka, samovoljnog zatvaranja i mučenja novinara, pripadnika medija, sindikalaca i boraca za ljudska prava u proteklih 12 mjeseci",OHCHR,Goal 16 TST Working Group,"For this indicator, killing includes intentional homicide and other arbitrary deprivation of life, as formulated in Article 6(1) ICCPR. Enforced disappearance is defined as the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law (International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, adapted to account for disappearances perpetrated by non-State actors). Arbitrary detention is detention without due process and safeguards, as outlined in Article 9(1) ICCPR. Torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity (Convention against Torture). Assault means physical attack against the body of another person resulting in serious bodily injury. \nHuman rights defenders is a term used to describe people who, individually or with others, act to promote or protect human rights. Human rights defenders are identified above all by what they do and it is through a description of their actions and of some of the contexts in which they work that the term can best be explained. The definition of human rights defenders may include journalists and trade unionists, but each individual case is counted only once. Other examples may include a student campaigning to end torture in prisons, a politician who takes a stand against endemic corruption or witnesses in court cases on human rights abuses. \nJournalists cover 'journalists, media workers and social media producers who generate a significant amount of public-interest journalism.' This concepualisation, has been agreed by UNESCO Member States, and could include a wide range of actors, including professional full-time reporters and analysts, foreign correspondents and local journalists, as well as bloggers and other social media producers who engage in forms of self-publication in print, on the Internet or elsewhere, journalists from 'traditional media' and those who work across multiple media. \nThe term ""trade unionist"" refers to an individual employed or accredited by a trade union, and other elected representatives of workers, including workers in the informal sector. \nThe indicator is calculated as the total number of reported cases of killing, disappearance, arbitrary detention, assault and torture of journalists, trade unionists or human rights defenders during the reporting period which are verified by an independent entity (in this case OHCHR and UNESCO).",,"Data on human rights violations committed against journalist, trade unionists and human rights defenders is required to know if fundamental freedoms, including the right to freedom of opinion and expression, which includes the right to receive information, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association are protected in accordance with international law. The State is obliged to respect the human rights of all persons under its jurisdiction, in that it must refrain from infringement on rights, as well as an obligation to protect individuals against acts of third parties. The indicator therefore measures all such cases, but where the killing, disappearance, detention, assault or torture is perpetrated by an agent of the State or any other person acting under government authority or with its complicity, tolerance or acquiescence, or where the State fails to adequately investigate, punish or redress an offence committed by a third party, this will constitute a violation of human rights. \nKilling, disappearance, arbitrary detention, assault and torture of journalists, trade unionists or human rights defenders may have a chilling effect on freedom of expression and other fundamental freedoms. In order to have a full picture of the extent of protection of fundamental freedoms, it is advisable to also have a basket of indicators at national level including on access to information, other aspects of the rights to freedom of opinion and expression and freedom of assembly and association, notably the right to communicate with international human rights mechanisms, and other types of human rights violations often committed against journalists, trade unionists and human rights defenders, which may include intimidation, harassment, prosecution, defamation, and restricting mobility.",,,,,,,"This indicator collates data from multiple sources, including National Human Rights Institutions, national non-governmental organisations, associations of journalists, trades unions, ILO, and international non-governmental organisations including, for example Reporters without Borders, Article 19, and the Human Rights Observatory. Regional human rights Commissions, Courts and organisations also receive reports of such violations. \nInformation on the number of such violations committed against human rights defenders will be compiled annually by OHCHR from these data sources and further data collected through individual complaints to human rights treaty bodies, and Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council, including the Special Rapporteurs on human rights defenders, on freedom of opinion and expression, torture, the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, and the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Additional data from OHCHR field offices and UN Country Teams will also be included. These data will be verified, cross-checked to ensure no duplication, and compiled in line with the agreed international definitions outlined above. \nInformation on the number of journalists killed are compiled annually by UNESCO, on a mandate by its Member States, from data collected through multi-sourced research, including press reports, information from monitoring groups, direct reports, and information from UNESCO field offices and other UN bodies. Reports of killings and impunity compiled by UNESCO are then transmitted for clarification on the status of judicial investigation to Member States and categorized into the following: 1) no information received so far; 2) ongoing; 3) resolved; 4) killed in cross-fire; and 5) others. This information can be found on an annual basis, within the reports by the UNESCO Director-General on 'The Safety of Journalists and the Danger of Impunity' and in the UNESCO study titled World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development. \nUNESCO and OHCHR will serve as the lead agencies that will compile and validate data from these multiple sources. These agencies will develop a methodology of adjusting data taking into account data quality issues and to ensure the comparability of different data sources.",,,"The data on the indicator is disaggregated by type of violation, profession/area of work, ethnicity, sex, age, income, geographic location, disability, religion, migratory or displacement status, minority or indigenous status, sexual orientation and gender identity of the victim, and relevant characteristics of the perpetrator, where known (public official, private individual, agent of another entity, sex, age). The indicator could also distinguish on the basis of political opinion of the victim where this has been expressed.","UNESCO and OHCHR are the agencies responsible for compiling these indicators at the international level. This is a forward-looking indicator, for which full methodologies will be developed in the course of implementation of the SDGs. UNESCO and OHCHR will first publish data on killings, and then on the other human rights violations included in the indicator.","Estimates of the number of violations are particularly sensitive to the completeness of reporting of individual events. Such data may underestimate (or sometimes, though more rarely, overestimate) the true number of cases. In most instances, the number of cases reported will depend on the access to information, motivation and perseverance of civil society organizations and the media.","Women human rights defenders have faced all the types of violations included in this indicator. However, their particular situation and role require special awareness and sensitivity both to the ways in which they might be affected differently by such pressures and to some additional challenges. It is essential to ensure that women human rights defenders as well as men are protected and supported in their work and, indeed, that such women are fully recognized as human rights defenders.",,"While this indicator does not cover every aspect of this particular target, it does identify one of the most salient and measurable dimensions that impacts on the whole. Further, it is an indicator that draws upon existing UN agreements and mechanisms for data collection.","Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/SRHRDefenders/Pages/Declaration.aspx \nUnited Nations (2004). Human Rights Defenders: Protecting the Right to Defend Human Rights. Geneva. Available from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/SRHRDefenders/Pages/SRHRDefendersIndex.aspx. \nUnited Nations (2012). Human Rights Indicators: A Guide to Measurement and Implementation. New York and Geneva. Available from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Indicators/Pages/HRIndicatorsIndex.aspx. \nUnited Nations (2014). The Safety of Journalists and the Danger of Impunity: Report by the Director-General to the Intergovernmental Council of the IPDC (Twenty-Ninth Session). Paris. Available from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002301/230101E.pdf. \nUnited Nations (2015) World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development. Paris. Available from: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/world-media-trends",5.2,16.1,16.3,16.6,,,,,UNESCO,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  16.1,TRUE,16,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-16.pdf,40,"Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements.",16.10.2,"Broj zemalja koje donose i provode ustavne, zakonske i/ili političke odredbe kojima se osigurava javnosti pristup informacijama",UNESCO,,"For this indicator, the operative words are ""existence"" and ""implementation"". As such, it establishes: (a) whether a country (or at the global level, the number of countries) has constitutional, statutory and/or policy guarantees for public access to information; (b) the extent to which such national guarantees reflect 'international agreements' (e.g. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, etc.); and (c) the implementation mechanisms in place for such guarantees, including the following variables: \n\tGovernment efforts to publicly promote the right to information. \n\tCitizens' awareness of their legal right to information and their ability to utilise it effectively. \n\tThe capacity of public bodies to provide information upon request by the public. \nThis indicator will thus collate data from multiple sources, including National Human Rights Institutions, national and international non-governmental organisations, academic institutions, and national media regulatory authorities, among others. Such information will be gathered, processed and checked by international organisations - UNESCO and World Bank. \nUNESCO collects some aspects of this data using the Media Development Indicators, in addition to the biennial World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development report. \nData are available for at least 195 countries.",,"The definition here relates directly to ""public access to information"", which is wider than, but is also very much based upon, the established fundamental freedoms of expression and association. \n(Conversely, these freedoms also both impact on the environment for public access to information). \nThe focus of this indicator is thus on the status of adoption and implementation of constitutional, statutory and/or policy guarantees for public access to information. \nAs suggested by the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) and UNESCO in earlier presentations to the UN Technical Support Team (UN TST), this is a relevant and measurable indicator. \nIt also responds to the growing number of UN member states that have already adopted legal guarantees, and many others that are currently considering relevant legislation or regulation in the field. \nThe rationale for assessing the implementation dimension is to assess the relevance of legal steps to practical information accessibility. It is not a composite indicator, but a logical linkage of laws and policies to practical impact that is relevant to SDG concerns. \nThe practical guarantee of public access may be partially assessed through dimensions such as those unpacked by The World Bank. In this way, the practical quality of legal provisions can be established by identifying if there are: 1) proactive disclosure provisions in laws that establish a legal duty to disclose; 2) mechanisms for citizens, firms, and others to request information that has not been proactively disclosed but that is relevant to their interests, 3) narrowly-tailored guidelines on exemptions to disclosure, and 4) institutional structures that support disclosure, such as information commissioners, oversight mechanisms, and complaints mechanisms. In some national cases, there is also information on the sources and numbers of requests and the response time taken to process these requests. \nUNESCO, within its mandate for the right to freedom of expression, which includes the corollary of the right to freedom of information, already monitors progress and issues in this area through its existing submissions to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) and regularly issued research reports on World Trends on Freedom of Expression and Media Development, including its Media Development Indicators assessments. Collaboration with the World Bank is foreseen, as well as drawing upon work undertaken by ARTICLE 19 in this area. \nAll these will be considered important aspects of establishing the existence and implementation of constitutional, statutory and/or policy guarantees for public access to information.",,,,,,,"\tUNESCO and World Bank reports \n\tOther UN bodies, such as UNDP \n\tNational bodies such as commissioners responsible for right to information implementation \n\tMedia regulators \n\tAcademic and research institutions \n\tMedia support NGOs (national and international)",,,"The indicator can be disaggregated in terms of the extent to which the residence of citizens affects their ability to access information (e.g. how do rural, peri-rural, urban and peri-urban dwellers access information from public bodies). It can also be disaggregated in terms of whether gender influences ability to access information.","With the indicator as proposed above, UNESCO could serve as a lead agency in compiling a periodic global report, including relevant inputs from other UN agencies and other bodies, for submission to the relevant UN body which will ultimately track the progress of SDGs. \nFor reports submitted directly by countries themselves or through regional peer reviews, data sources for the proposed indicator could include official Human Rights Commissions or Information Commissioner figures where these exist, judicial records, police and civil society statistics, and academic research. \nA more qualitative component of reporting on the proposed indicator could include aspects such as the actual impact of the right to information laws on SDG-relevant concerns. \nThe UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) has collected information on two aspects in a pilot survey on Media Statistics, reinforcing the 'judicial processes' dimension of the indicator: \nLF17. Is there a legal provision for access to information held by the State? \nLF18. Is there a constitutional provision for access to information held by the State? \nData are currently available for 56 countries after two rounds of pilot surveys.","This indicator does not assess the totality of ""public access to information"" component of the full Target of 16.10. Nevertheless, it focusses on a key determinant of the wider information environment.",This indicator can be disaggregated in terms of the ability by men and women to access public information.,Data are available for at least 195 countries.,,"UNESCO Media Development Indicators: Framework for assessing media development. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0016/001631/163102e.pdf \nWorld Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/world-media-trends \nUniversal Periodic Review: [UNESCO contributes data on freedom of expression, including constitutional guarantees thereof, in addition to tracking killings of journalists]. http://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/upr/pages/BasicFacts.aspx",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  16.a,TRUE,16,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-16.pdf,43,"Strengthen relevant national institutions, including through international cooperation, for building capacity at all levels, in particular in developing countries, to prevent violence and combat terrorism and crime.",16.a.1,Postojanje neovisnih nacionalnih institucija za ljudska prava u skladu s Pariškim načelima,OHCHR,,"Definition \nThis indicator measures the proportion of countries that have internationally recognized independent (NHRIs) based on the rules of procedure of the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions (ICC). \nConcepts \nA National Human Rights Institution is an independent administrative body set up by a State to promote and protect human rights. NHRIs are State bodies with a constitutional and/or legislative mandate to protect and promote human rights. They are part of the State apparatus and are funded by the State. However, they operate and function independently from government. While their specific mandate may vary, the general role of NHRIs is to address discrimination in all its forms, as well as to promote the protection of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. Core functions of NHRIs include complaint handling, human rights education and making recommendations on law reform. Effective NHRIs are an important link between government and civil society, in so far as they help bridge the 'protection gap' between the rights of individuals and the responsibilities of the State. Six models of NHRIs exist across all regions of the world today, namely: Human rights commissions, Human rights ombudsman institutions, Hybrid institutions, Consultative and advisory bodies, Institutes and centres and multiple institutions. \nAn Independent NHRI is an institution with 'A level' accreditation status as benchmarked against the United Nations Paris Principles, which were adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1993.1 The process of accreditation is conducted through peer review by the Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA) of the ICC. There are three possible types of accreditation: \nA: Compliance with Paris Principles \nB: Observer Status ' Not fully in compliance with the Paris Principles or insufficient information provided to make a determination \nC: Non-compliant with the Paris Principles \nAccreditation by the ICC entails a determination whether the NHRI is compliant, both in law and practice, with the Paris principles, the principal source of the normative standards for NHRIs, as well as with the General Observations developed by the SCA. \nOther international standards may also be taken into account by the SCA, including the provisions related to the establishment of national mechanisms in the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment as well as in the International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Likewise, the SCA looks at any NHRI-related recommendation from the international human rights mechanisms, notably, the Treaty Bodies, Universal Periodic Review (UPR) and special procedures. The process also looks into the effectiveness and level of engagement with international human rights systems. \nMethod of computation \nThe indicator is computed as the accreditation classification, namely A, B or C of the NHRI.",,"This indicator measures the global continual efforts of countries in setting up independent national institutions, through international cooperation, to promote inclusive, peaceful and accountable societies. The creation and fosterage of a NHRI indicates a State's commitment to promote and protect the human rights provided in international human rights instruments. Compliance with the Paris Principles vest NHRIs with a broad mandate, competence and power to investigate, report on the national human rights situation, and publicise human rights through information and education. While NHRIs are essentially state funded, they are to maintain independence and pluralism. When vested with a quasi-judicial competence, NHRIs handle complaints and assist victims in taking their cases to courts making them an essential component in the national human rights protection system. These fundamental functions that NHRIs play and their increasing participation in the international human rights fora make them important actors in the improvement of the human rights situation, including the elimination of discriminatory laws and the promotion and enforcement of non-discriminatory laws \nAt the national level reporting, the better the accreditation classification of the NHRI reflects that it is credible, legitimate, relevant and effective in promoting human rights at the national level.",,,,,,,"The main source of data on the indicator is administrative records of the SubCommittee on Accreditation reports of the ICC. OHCHR compiles the data into a global directory of NHRI status accreditation updated every six months, after the Subcommittee on Accreditation submits its report. This information can be accessed on a continuous basis, including through maps.",,,"While disaggregation of information is not applicable for this indicator, it may be desirable to highlight the type of NHRI, whether Ombudsman, human rights commission, advisory body, research-based institute, etc.",ICC and OHCHR are the agencies responsible for compiling these indicators at the international level.,"The UN Secretary General's (SG) reports to the Human Rights Council (HRC) (A/HRC/13/44) and to the General Assembly (A/65/340, highlighted the value of the overall human rights work by NHRIs and stated that, 'National human rights institutions compliant with the Paris Principles are key elements of a strong and effective national human rights protection system. They can help ensure the compliance of national laws and practices with international human rights norms; support governments to ensure their implementation; monitor and address at the national level core human rights concerns such as torture, arbitrary detention, human trafficking and human rights of migrants; support the work of human rights defenders; and contribute to eradicate all forms of discrimination', (A/HRC/13/44, par. 108). Cooperation and constructive relationship between NHRIs and the government, parliaments, civil society organisations and other national institutions with a role to promote and protect human rights is encouraged by the SG in his report to the HRC for 2010 (A/HRC/16/76). The important and constructive role of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights has also been acknowledged in different United Nations instruments and resolutions, including the Final Document and Programme of Action of the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna, GA resolutions A/RES/63/172 (2008) and A/RES/64/161 (2009) on National institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights. In addition, creation and strengthening of NHRIs have also been encouraged. For example, the 1993 GA resolution 48/134 'affirms the priority that should be accorded to the development of appropriate arrangements at the national level to ensure the effective implementation of international human rights standards' while the 2008 GA resolution A/RES/63/169 encouraged states 'to consider the creation or the strengthening of independent and autonomous Ombudsman, mediator and other national human rights institutions'. The Human Rights Council (HRC resolution 5/1, 2007) also called for the effective participation of national human rights institutions in its institution building package, which provides elements to guide its future work. \nUN treaty bodies have also recognised the crucial role that NHRIs represent in the effective implementation of treaty obligations and encouraged their creation (e.g. CERD General Comment 17, A/48/18 (1993); CESCR General Comment 10, E/C.12/1998/25; and CRC General Comment 2, CRC/GC/2002/2). A compilation of various recommendations and concluding observations relevant to NHRIs emanating from the international human rights mechanisms in the United Nations is available at: http://www.universalhumanrightsindex.org/. \nThe ICC is an international association of NHRIs which promotes and strengthens NHRIs to be in accordance with the Paris Principles and provides leadership in the promotion and protection of human rights (ICC Statute, Art. 5). Decisions on the classifications of NHRIs are based on their submitted documents such as: 1) copy of legislation or other instrument by which it is established and empowered in its official or published format (e.g. statute, and /or constitutional provisions, and/or presidential decree, 2) outline of organisational structure including details of staff and annual budget, 3) copy of recent published annual report; 4) detailed statement showing how it complies with the Paris Principles. NHRIs that hold 'A' and 'B' status are reviewed every five years. Civil society organisations may also provide relevant information to OHCHR pertaining to any accreditation matter. \nAccreditation of NHRIs shows that the government supports human rights work in the country. However their effectiveness should also be measured based on their ability to gain public trust and the quality of their human rights work. In this context, it would also be worthwhile to look into the responses of the NHRI to the recommendations of the ICC. Likewise, the inputs from the NHRI while engaging with the international human rights mechanisms (i.e. submissions to the Human Rights Council, including UPR, and to the treaty bodies) represent a valuable source of information on how NHRIs carry out their mandate in reference to international human rights instruments.","NHRIs should have a clear mandate to examine and make recommendations on equality and non-discrimination, including on the ground of gender.",,,"Data for the indicator are available here: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Countries/NHRI/Pages/NHRIMain.aspx \nMaps of the data are available here: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Indicators/Pages/HRIndicatorsIndex.aspx \nThe Paris Principles require NHRIs to: a) Protect human rights, including by receiving, investigating and resolving complaints, mediating conflicts and monitoring activities; and b) Promote human rights, through education, outreach, the media, publications, training and capacity building, as well as advising and assisting the Government. The Paris Principles set out six main criteria that NHRIs require to meet: Mandate and competence: a broad mandate, based on universal human rights norms and standards; Autonomy from Government; Independence guaranteed by statute or Constitution; Pluralism; Adequate resources; and Adequate powers of investigation. \nUNITED NATIONS (2011). National Human Rights Institutions; History, Principles, Roles and Responsibilities. Geneva. Available from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Countries/NHRI/Pages/NHRIMain.aspx \nUNITED NATIONS (2012). Human Rights Indicators: A Guide to Measurement and Implementation. New York and Geneva. Available from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Indicators/Pages/HRIndicatorsIndex.aspx.",10.3,16.b,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  16.b,TRUE,16,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-16.pdf,47,Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development.,16.b.1,Udio stanovništva koji je izjavio kako se osobno osjećao diskriminiranim ili uznemiravanim u proteklih 12 mjeseci na temelju razloga diskriminacije zabranjenih prema međunarodnoj pravnoj osnovi o ljudskim pravima,Goal 16 TST Working Group,,"Grounds of discrimination prohibited under international human rights law, as enshrined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and subsequently elaborated upon by international human rights mechanisms, include ethnicity, sex, age, income, geographic location, disability, religion, migratory or displacement status, civil status, sexual orientation and gender identity. While some grounds are common to all countries and follow standard definitions, such as sex, age or disability, the precise categories to be included under grounds such as ethnicity, geographic location and religion will vary according to national circumstances and should be determined in a participatory process at national level. \nThe indicator is calculated as the percentage of persons reporting having personally felt discriminated against or harassed within the last 12 months on the basis of a ground of discrimination prohibited under international human rights law. This will be calculated using the full survey results, with techniques of imputation, estimation and data weighting to ensure a representative sample and data reliability.",,"This outcome indicator provides a measure of how well non-discriminatory laws and policies are applied in practice, from the perspective of the population. It is based on personal experience rather than perception to ensure greater validity of data, as perceptions of the experience of others may themselves be affected by stereotyping.",,,,,,,The primary data source is surveys conducted at the national or regional level.,,,"Data for this indicator should be disaggregated by ground of discrimination, relationship with the person or entity felt to have discriminated (employer/employee, public official or employee, private enterprise, teacher/student, etc.), and place where the discrimination occurred (work, street, home, school, etc.). This indicator should be also disaggregated by age, sex, region and population group.","Data for this indicator are collected in an increasing number of countries. At the regional level, the EU Fundamental Rights Agency has collected the data for 27 EU Member States. Relevant data is also collected in Eurobarometer and Afrobarometer surveys, and this question could easily be added.","This indicator is proposed to monitor the following targets: \n10.2 (inclusion) \n10.3 (equal opportunities) \n16.3 (rule of law) \nBecause the indicator measures the percentage of the population reporting discrimination during the time period, each victim is counted only once, irrespective of the number of times discrimination or harassment was experienced. Without this information, the indicator does not therefore permit estimates of incidence of discrimination. \nIn many national contexts, surveys may exclude the homeless or low-income groups without access to telephones. Face-to-face surveys often exclude non-urban populations or members of linguistic minorities. There is evidence to suggest that the most marginalised populations are less likely to respond to surveys, but this effect is reduced by ensuring their participation in the preparation of the survey.","Data for the indicator should be disaggregated by sex, sexual orientation and gender identity. \nMultiple grounds of discrimination (e.g. women members of an ethnic minority who have suffered discrimination based on both sex and ethnicity) should be noted.",,,FRA survey data and methodology:\n http://fra.europa.eu/en/survey/2012/eu-midis-european-union-minorities-and-discrimination-survey,10.2,10.3,16.3,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  17.1,TRUE,17,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-17.pdf,2,"Strengthen domestic resource mobilization, including through international support to developing countries, to improve domestic capacity for tax and other revenue collection.",17.1.1,"Ukupni državni prihod kao udio BDP-a, po izvoru",OECD,,"Total taxes as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In the OECD classification the term ""taxes"" is defined as compulsory unrequited payments to general government. The definition of government follows that of the 2008 System of National Accounts (SNA). The important parts of the SNA's conceptual framework and its definitions of the various sectors of the economy have been reflected in the OECD's classification of taxes. The data are predominantly recorded on an accrual basis. Data on tax revenues are recorded without offsets for the administrative expenses connected with tax collection. GDP also follows the definition used in the SNA. The methodology used in compiling the OECD's internally comparable revenue statistics has been carefully developed and refined through consultation with national statisticians and tax policy makers for more than 40 years. It continues to evolve.",,"The headline measure presents the total tax revenues received by the national government during the year, expressed as a percentage of GDP ' i.e., total national income. Taxes include personal and corporate income taxes, taxes on property, value added taxes, excise taxes, tariffs, customs duties and social security contributions. The tax to GDP ratio is the leading indicator to estimate the financial domestic means of a government to conduct its programme, to raise resources to supply physical infrastructure, public goods and services. The tax to GDP ratio supports the development of effective tax systems and is an essential feature of a successful governance framework. Normalising the data, by dividing total revenues by GDP, enables easy comparisons across countries Comparable and consistent tax statistics, such as the tax to GDP ratio, facilitate transparent policy dialogue and provide policy makers with an important tool to assess alternative fiscal reforms and to undertake relevant policy actions.",,,,,,,The OECD Revenue Statistics data are compiled by the OECD and are provided by each country in accordance with the OECD classification. The accuracy of the data is guaranteed as it is verified and validated by national authorities and regional organisations.,,,"The OECD Revenue Statistics publications not only contain the overall tax burden as measured by tax to GDP ratios but also provide comparative statistics on: the tax mix (i.e., the distribution of the total tax take by the main types of taxes ' for example, personal and corporate income taxes, social security contributions, taxes on goods and services; taxes on payroll and workforce; taxes on property); the share of tax revenues attributed to the different levels of government (i.e., federal or central, state and local). In certain sub-headings, distinctions are made between different categories of taxpayers.","The OECD Revenue Statistics publication is an annual report presenting a unique set of internationally comparable tax data in a common format from 1965 onwards for OECD member countries. The OECD's Revenue Statistics publications have been expanding to include a larger number of partner countries in three regions ' Africa / Asia and Pacific Islands / Latin America and the Caribbean. The OECD has published four annual editions of Revenue Statistics in Latin America and the Caribbean and two annual editions of Revenue Statistics in Asian countries. The OECD is currently working towards the publication of the first edition of Revenue Statistics in Africa, due to be released in early 2016.",The coverage of the OECD Revenue Statistics data currently includes more than 60 countries and is progressively increasing. It would be possible to complement the missing countries with alternative sources of data such as national accounts.,,,"Methodology of collection and classification and data are on-line. They are publicly available at all time, freely reusable for analysis.",http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?lang=en&SubSessionId=bce616ae-0181-41e1-aae7-4d820bbd68e1&themetreeid=18,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  17.1,TRUE,17,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-17.pdf,4,"Strengthen domestic resource mobilization, including through international support to developing countries, to improve domestic capacity for tax and other revenue collection.",17.1.2,Udio domaćeg proračuna koji se financira prihodima od domaćih poreza,IMF,,"Tax burden: Revenue in the form of taxes as defined under government finance statistics (GFS) code 11 as a share of total revenue. \nIn GFS, taxes are classified into six major categories: (i) taxes on income, profits, and capital gains; (ii) taxes on payroll and workforce; (iii) taxes on property; (iv) taxes on goods and services; (v) taxes on international trade and transactions; and (vi) other taxes. \n(Source: IMF, Government Finance Statistics Manual 2014 (GFSM 2014), Table 4A.1, assessed Dec 28 2015) \nConcepts \nTax burden concept may be disaggregated into the complementary concepts of: ""direct taxes"" or taxes that take into account individual circumstances of taxpayers (e.g., taxes on individual and corporate income), which can be calculated from the following detailed GFS revenue classifications: 111 Taxes on income, profits, and capital gains+1131 Recurrent taxes on immovable property+1132 Recurrent taxes on net wealth+1136 Other recurrent taxes on property; and ""indirect taxes"" or taxes that do not take into account individual circumstances of taxpayers (e.g., taxes imposed on goods and services), which can be calculated from the following detailed GFS revenue classifications 112 Taxes on payroll and workforce+114 Taxes on goods and services+115 Taxes on international trade and transactions+116 Other taxes. \nTax burden is directly related to the wider concept of fiscal burden, which can be derived from combining two GFSM 2014 revenue codes: code 11 Taxes plus code 12, Social Contributions or, alternatively 11+121+122. \nThese concepts can also be found in the 2008 System of National Accounts (2008 SNA). \nThe coverage, timing, and valuation of tax revenue in GFSM 2014 and the 2008 SNA are identical, but the classification systems differ. The 2008 SNA classifies taxes according to their role in economic activities'namely: (i) taxes on production and imports (D2); (ii) current taxes on income, wealth, etc. (D5); and (iii) capital taxes (D91). The result is that some categories of taxes in GFS need to be allocated between two of the SNA tax categories according to whether they are payable by producers or final consumers, or whether they are current or capital taxes. A detailed description of the linkages between the GFS and the 2008 SNA categories of taxes is provided in Appendix 7 of the GFSM 2014.",,"Measures of tax burden are indicators of how well tax policy meets one of its primary goals, equitably raising the revenues needed to run government. Equity has two aspects. The first, vertical equity, concerns the way taxes are distributed among taxpayers with different abilities to pay. The second, horizontal equity, concerns the way taxes are distributed among taxpayers with the same ability to pay. Tax burden measures thus answer broad economic and social questions about the effect of tax policy on the distribution of income and wealth. \nThe distinction regarding national, state and/or local level government is important. For the purposes of monitoring this indicator, the central budget is seen as the focus (even if some of tax payments go to other jurisdictions). When decisions about resources are made, the budgetary central government is a key subsector of the general government sector of the economy. The general government sector consists of resident institutional units that fulfill the functions of government as their primary activity. In all countries, there is an institutional unit of the general government sector particularly important in terms of size and power, in particular the power to exercise control over many other units and entities. The budgetary central government is often a single unit of the central government that encompasses the fundamental activities of the national executive, legislative, and judiciary powers. This component of general government is usually covered by the main (or general) budget. The budgetary central government's revenue and expense are normally regulated and controlled by a ministry of finance, or its functional equivalent, by means of a budget approved by the legislature. Most of the ministries, departments, agencies, boards, commissions, judicial authorities, legislative bodies, and other entities that make up the budgetary central government are not separate institutional units. This is because they generally do not have the authority to own assets, incur liabilities, or engage in transactions in their own right (see GFSM 2014 Chapter 2). \nThere is a widespread acceptance ' in the Addis Ababa Action Agenda and indeed in Agenda 2030 ' that multiple sources of finance will be needed to meet the SDGs, and that these will need to work together effectively. This includes a greater role for domestic resources in meeting national development goals, and for interventions in which public resources ' including ODA - strengthen domestic capacities for expanding their revenue bases. Indeed, especially in developing countries, vertical fiscal gaps will potentially widen as demands increase for higher public spending ' particularly in countries where there is significant pressure on central authorities to provide quality infrastructure and basic services. In many cases the execution of the budgetary central government's proposed budget is constrained by poor revenue administration and/or a lack of a statistical framework for monitoring revenue streams. Given unpredictable and fluctuating levels of revenue in many developing countries, improved revenue statistics will help mitigate any possible budget shortfalls and support the sustainable development of national economies.",,,,,,,"Revenue data: annual and sub-annual tax data in either GFS format or a national presentation that can be ""bridged"" to the GFS classifications are generally available from Ministry of Finance data. Such data refer to the six main GFS categories as indicated under Definition.",,,"It is suggested, based upon the complexity of data collection, standardised reporting, and cost implications that data should not be disaggregated below the level of detail presented in the GFSM 2014.",,"Key issues related to this indicator are (1) level of disaggregation of the six main GFS tax categories, (2) cost of linking national presentations to the GFS classification system, (3) data accuracy, and (4) cross-country comparability. Although the SNA and OECD Revenue Statistics may be utilised to determine the tax burden, ensuring cross-country comparability can best be achieved through the use of the GFSM 2014 classifications.",,,"Revenue Statistics, published annually by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the related database, although limited to OECD countries and a specific timeline, does provide a widely adopted and largely comparable methodology that can support addressing this indicator. This annual publication gives a conceptual framework to define which government receipts should be regarded as taxes. It presents a unique set of detailed and internationally comparable tax data in a common format for all OECD countries from 1965 onwards. \nIt should also be noted that the classification employed in OECD Revenue Statistics has two main differences from the GFSM 2014: Compulsory social security contributions are treated as taxes and the categories of taxes on goods and services, and taxes on international trade and transactions are combined into a single category. In addition, at a detailed classification level, Revenue Statistics differs in the following aspects: (i) payable tax credits are recorded as negative taxes to the extent that the payable tax credit off sets existing income tax receivable; (ii) imputed taxes or subsidies resulting from the central bank imposing a rate of interest other than the market rate are excluded from Revenue Statistics; and (iii) imputed taxes or subsidies resulting from the operation of multiple exchange rate systems are excluded from Revenue Statistics. \n\n see report for examples.","IMF, Government Finance Statistics Manual 2014 (GFSM 2014), assessed Dec 28 2015. \nOCED, Revenue Statistics and the related database, (http://www.oecd.org/ctp/tax-policy/revenue-statistics-19963726.htm), assessed Dec 28 2015.",16.6,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  17.2,TRUE,17,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-17.pdf,8,"Developed countries to implement fully their official development assistance commitments, including the commitment by many developed countries to achieve the target of 0.7 per cent of gross national income for official development assistance (ODA/GNI) to developing countries and 0.15 to 0.20 per cent of ODA/GNI to least developed countries; ODA providers are encouraged to consider setting a target to provide at least 0.20 per cent of ODA/GNI to least developed countries.",17.2.1,"Neto službena razvojna pomoć, ukupna i pomoć najmanje razvijenim zemljama, kao udio u bruto nacionalnom dohotku (BND) donatora Odbora za razvojnu pomoć Organizacije za ekonomsku suradnju i razvoj (OECD)",OECD,,"Net official development assistance (ODA;http://www.oecd.org/dac/dac-glossary.htm#ODA) to all countries on the DAC List of ODA Recipients (http://www.oecd.org/dac/dac-glossary.htm#DAC_List) and net official development assistance to the Least Developed Countries, SIDS and LLDCs (http://unohrlls.org/), as well as African countries. Data are usually expressed in US dollars at the average annual exchange rate, or as a share of provider countries' gross national income (GNI).",,"ODA is the accepted measure of development co-operation, including both grants and soft loans provided by governments for development and welfare objectives in developing countries. UN members have agreed a total net ODA target for economically advanced countries of 0.7% of GNI, and a target of 0.15-0.20% for ODA to LDCs.",,,,,,,"Data on ODA are compiled by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development from returns submitted by its member countries and other aid providers. Data can be accessed here, http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/data.htm.",,,"The data are generally obtained on an activity level, and include numerous parameters. They can thus be disaggregated by provider and recipient country, by the groups of countries listed in Target 10b; and by sector assisted, by type of finance, and by type of resources provided.",,"The data only address concessional flows for development and welfare purposes provided by governments. The OECD and other organisations also collect data on broader financial flows to developing countries, including non-concessional official flows, foreign direct investment, bank lending, export credits and other flows. The World Bank makes estimates of remittance flows, and the IMF compiles balance-of-payments data. However the poverty focus and concordance of the various categories of flows with national development plans is less clear, and further discussion may be required to arrive at an agreed measure of non-ODA official and private flows ""to implement programmes and policies to end poverty in all its dimensions"".","The data include a ""gender equality"" marker (http://www.oecd.org/investment/stats/37461060.pdf) which identifies individual projects that have a clear gender dimension. There are also dedicated purpose codes for activities specifically targeting gender equality or that aim to combat violence against women and girls (in preparation).",,See the DAC Aid Statistics page (http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/documentupload/MeasuringAid50yearsDACStats.pdf).,"OECD 2011, Measuring Aid (http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/documentupload/MeasuringAid50yearsDACStats.pdf).",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  17.3,FALSE,17,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-17.pdf,9,Mobilize additional financial resources for developing countries from multiple sources.,17.3.1,"Inozemna izravna ulaganja, službena razvojna pomoć i suradnja Jug-Jug iskazana kao udio u bruto nacionalnom dohotku",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  17.3,FALSE,17,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-17.pdf,9,Mobilize additional financial resources for developing countries from multiple sources.,17.3.2,Iznos troškova prijenosa sredstava (u američkim dolarima) iskazan kao udio u ukupnom BDP-u,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  17.4,FALSE,17,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-17.pdf,10,"Assist developing countries in attaining long-term debt sustainability through coordinated policies aimed at fostering debt financing, debt relief and debt restructuring, as appropriate, and address the external debt of highly indebted poor countries to reduce debt distress.",17.4.1,Servis duga kao udio izvoza roba i usluga,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  17.5,FALSE,17,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-17.pdf,11,Adopt and implement investment promotion regimes for least developed countries.,17.5.1,"Broj zemalja koje donose i provode programe promicanja ulaganja za zemlje u razvoju, uključujući i najmanje razvijene zemlje",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  17.6,FALSE,17,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-17.pdf,12,"Enhance North-South, South-South and triangular regional and international cooperation on and access to science, technology and innovation and enhance knowledge sharing on mutually agreed terms, including through improved coordination among existing mechanisms, in particular at the United Nations level, and through a global technology facilitation mechanism.",17.6.1,"Fiksne internetske širokopojasne pretplate na 100 stanovnika, prema brzini",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  17.6,TRUE,17,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-17.pdf,12,"Enhance North-South, South-South and triangular regional and international cooperation on and access to science, technology and innovation and enhance knowledge sharing on mutually agreed terms, including through improved coordination among existing mechanisms, in particular at the United Nations level, and through a global technology facilitation mechanism.",17.6.2,"Fixed Internet broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants, by speed",ITU,Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development,"The indicator fixed Internet broadband subscriptions, by speed, refers to the number of fixed broadband subscriptions to the public Internet, split by advertised download speed. \nFixed Internet broadband subscriptions refer to subscriptions to high-speed access to the public Internet (a TCP/IP connection), at downstream speeds equal to, or greater than, 256 kbit/s. This includes cable modem, DSL, fibre-to-the-home/building, other fixed (wired)- broadband subscriptions, satellite broadband and terrestrial fixed wireless broadband. This total is measured irrespective of the method of payment. It excludes subscriptions that have access to data communications (including the Internet) via mobile-cellular networks. It should include fixed WiMAX and any other fixed wireless technologies. It includes both residential subscriptions and subscriptions for organizations. \nThe Internet is a worldwide public computer network. It provides access to a number of communication services including the World Wide Web and carries e-mail, news, entertainment and data files. \nThe indicator is currently broken down by the following subscription speeds: \n\t256 kbit/s to less than 2 Mbit/s subscriptions: Refers to all fixed broadband Internet subscriptions with advertised downstream speeds equal to, or greater than, 256 kbit/s and less than 2 Mbit/s. \n\t2 Mbit/s to less than 10 Mbit/s subscriptions: Refers to all fixed -broadband Internet subscriptions with advertised downstream speeds equal to, or greater than, 2 Mbit/s and less than 10 Mbit/s. \n\tEqual to or above 10 Mbit/s subscriptions (4213_G10). Refers to all fixed - broadband Internet subscriptions with advertised downstream speeds equal to, or greater than, 10 Mbit/s. \nITU collects data for this indicator through an annual questionnaire from national regulatory authorities or Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Ministries, who collect the data from national Internet service providers. The data can be collected by asking each Internet service provider in the country to provide the number of their fixed-broadband subscriptions by the speeds indicated. The data are then added up to obtain the country totals.",,"The Internet has become an increasingly important tool to provide access to information, and can help foster and enhance regional and international cooperation on, and access to, science, technology and innovations, and enhance knowledge sharing. High-speed Internet access is important to ensure that Internet users have quality access to the Internet and can take advantage of the growing amount of Internet content ' including user-generated content ', services and information. \nWhile the number of fixed-broadband subscriptions has increased substantially over the last years and while service providers offer increasingly higher speeds, fixed Internet broadband can vary tremendously by speed, thus affecting the quality and functionality of Internet access. Many countries, especially in the developing world, have not only a very limited amount of fixed-broadband subscriptions, but also at very low speeds. This limitation is a barrier to the Target 17.6 and the indicator highlights the potential of the Internet (especially through high-speed access) to enhance cooperation, improve access to science, technology and innovation, and share knowledge. The indicator also highlights the importance of Internet use as a development enabler and helps to measure the digital divide, which, if not properly addressed, will aggravate inequalities in all development domains. Information on fixed broadband subscriptions by speed will contribute to the design of targeted policies to overcome those divides.",,,,,,,"The indicator fixed Internet broadband subscriptions, by speed is based on an internationally agreed definition and methodology, which have been developed under the coordination of ITU, through its Expert Groups and following an extensive consultation process with countries. It is also a core indicator of the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development's Core List of Indicators, which has been endorsed by the UN Statistical Commission (last time in 2014). The indicator on fixed Internet broadband subscriptions is also included in the ITU ICT Development Index (IDI), and thus considered a key metric for international comparisons of ICT developments. In the future, as more countries collect data on this indicator broken down by speed, breakdowns could be included and used to calculate the IDI. \nITU collects data for this indicator through an annual questionnaire from national regulatory authorities or Information and Communication Technology Ministries, who collect the data from Internet service providers. By 2014, data were available for about 80 economies, from developed and developing regions, and covering all key global regions. Data on fixedbroadband subscriptions (not broken down by speed) exist for almost 200 economies in the world. ITU publishes data on this indicator yearly.",,,"Since data for this indicator are based on administrative data from operators, no information on individual subscribers is available and therefore the data cannot be broken down by any individual characteristics. Data could in theory be broken down by geographic location and urban/rural, but ITU does not collect this information.","Regional and global aggregates of the number of fixed Internet broadband subscriptions, by speed have not yet been produced since data exist for about 80 economies (in 2014).\nHowever, more countries are expected to provide information on this indicator over the next few years, which will allow ITU to produce regional and global estimates. Data on fixed-broadband subscriptions not broken down by speed are widely available, and regional and global aggregates can easily be produced.","Since most Internet service providers offer plans linked to download speed, the indicator is relatively straightforward to collect. Countries may use packages that do not align with the speeds used for this group of indicators. Countries are encouraged to collect the data in more speed categories so as to allow aggregation of the data according to the split shown above. In the future, ITU might start to include higher-speed categories, reflecting the increasing demand and availability of higher-speed broadband subscriptions.",,,Year-end data are released in December of the following year through the ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Database.,"ITU Handbook for the Collection of Administrative Data on Telecommunications/ICT, 2011, (and revisions and new indicators) (http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/publications/handbook.aspx)",8.2,9.1,9.c,17.8,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  17.7,FALSE,17,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-17.pdf,15,"Promote the development, transfer, dissemination and diffusion of environmentally sound technologies to developing countries on favourable terms, including on concessional and preferential terms, as mutually agreed.",17.7.1,"Ukupan iznos odobrenih sredstava za zemlje u razvoju namijenjenih promicanju razvoja, prijenosa i širenja ekološki prihvatljivih tehnologija",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  17.8,TRUE,17,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-17.pdf,16,"Fully operationalize the technology bank and science, technology and innovation capacity-building mechanism for least developed countries by 2017 and enhance the use of enabling technology, in particular information and communications technology.",17.8.1,Udio pojedinaca koji koriste internet,ITU,UNCDF,"This indicator is defined as the proportion of individuals who used the Internet from any location in the last three months. The Internet is a worldwide public computer network. It provides access to a number of communication services including the World Wide Web and carries e-mail, news, entertainment and data files, irrespective of the device used (not assumed to be only via a computer _ it may also be by mobile telephone, tablet, PDA, games machine, digital TV etc.). Access can be via a fixed or mobile network. \nFor countries that collect data on this indicator through an official survey, this indicator is calculated by dividing the total number of in-scope individuals using the Internet (from any location) in the last 3 months by the total number of in-scope individuals. For countries that have not carried out an official survey, data are estimated (by ITU) based on the number of Internet subscriptions and other socioeconomic indicators such as for example GNI per capita, and on the time series data of the indicator.",,"The Internet has become an increasingly important tool to access public information, which is a relevant means to protect fundamental freedoms. The number of Internet users has increased substantially over the last decade and access to the Internet has changed the way people live, communicate, work and do business. Internet uptake is a key indicator tracked by policy makers and others to measure the development of the information society and the growth of Internet content ' including user-generated content ' provides access to increasing amounts of information and services. \nDespite growth in networks, services and applications, information and communication technology (ICT) access and use is still far from equally distributed, and many people cannot yet benefit from the potential of the Internet. This indicator highlights the importance of Internet use as a development enabler and helps to measure the digital divide, which, if not properly addressed, will aggravate inequalities in all development domains. Classificatory variables for individuals using the Internet ' such as age, sex, education level or labour force status ' can help identify digital divides in individuals using the Internet. This information can contribute to the design of targeted policies to overcome those divides. \nThe proportion of individuals using the Internet is an established indicator and also one of the three ICT-related Millennium Development Goal (MDG) indicators (for Target 8F). It is part of the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development's Core List of Indicators, which has been endorsed by the UN Statistical Commission (last time in 2014). It is also included in the ITU ICT Development Index, and thus considered a key metric for international comparisons of ICT developments.",,,,,,,"This indicator is based on an internationally agreed definition and methodology, which have been developed under the coordination of ITU, through its Expert Groups and following an extensive consultation process with countries. It is also a core indicator of the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development's Core List of Indicators, which has been endorsed by the UN Statistical Commission (last time in 2014). Data on individuals using the Internet are collected through an annual questionnaire that ITU sends to national statistical offices (NSO). In this questionnaire ITU collects absolute values. The percentages are calculated a-posteriori. 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 situation of the country for other related indicators (ICT and economic). \nFor most developed and an increasing number of developing countries, percentage of individuals using the Internet data are based on methodologically sound household surveys conducted by national statistical agencies. If the NSO has not collected Internet user statistics, then ITU estimates the percentage of individuals using the Internet. \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. \nSome countries conduct a household survey where the question on Internet use is included every year. For others, the frequency is every two or three years. Overall, the indicator is available for 100 countries at least from one survey in the years 2011-2014. \nITU makes the indicator available for each year for 200 economies by using survey data and estimates for almost all countries of the world.",,,"For countries that collect this indicator through an official survey, and if data allow breakdown and disaggregation, the indicator can be broken down by region (geographic and/or urban/rural), by sex, by age group, by educational level, by labour force status, and by occupation. ITU collects data for all of these breakdowns from countries.","Regional and global aggregates of the number of Internet users are calculated as unweighted sums of the country values. Regional and global values for the percentage of individuals using the Internet are averages of the country values weighted by the population of the countries and regions. They are widely available since ITU produces data for this indicator for 200 economies, covering the large majority of developed and developing countries, and all regions.","While the data on the percentage of individuals using the Internet are very reliable for countries that have collected the data through official household surveys, they are less reliable in cases where the number of Internet users is estimated by ITU. ITU is encouraging all countries to collect data on this indicator through official surveys and the number of countries with official data for this indicator is increasing.","Discrepancies exist between the proportion of men and women that use the Internet and it is important to track this gender divide. For countries that collect this indicator through an official survey, and if data allow breakdown and disaggregation, the indicator can be broken down by sex. About 70 countries have sex-disaggregated data for this indicator for at least one year in the period 2011-2014 and more countries are expected to produce these data over the next years.",,"Discrepancies between global and national figures may arise when countries use a different definition than the one agreed internationally and used by ITU. Discrepancies may also arise in cases where the age scope of the surveys differs, or when the country only provides data for a certain age group and not the total population. \nYear-end estimates are usually released in June of the following year through the ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Database. Data are also available at no cost through the ITU ICT Eye, see: http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/",ITU Manual for Measuring ICT Access and Use by Households and Individuals 2014 (http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/publications/manual2014.aspx),1.4,2.c,5.b,9.c,10.3,12.8,16.1,16.6,Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development,,,,,16.7,16.1,17.6,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  17.9,TRUE,17,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-17.pdf,18,"Enhance international support for implementing effective and targeted capacity-building in developing countries to support national plans to implement all the Sustainable Development Goals, including through North-South, South-South and triangular cooperation.",17.9.1,"Vrijednost financijske i tehničke pomoći, izražena u američkim dolarima (uključujući pomoć putem suradnje Sjever-Jug, Jug-Jug i trostrane suradnje), namijenjene zemljama u razvoju",OECD,,"Official development assistance (ODA;http://www.oecd.org/dac/dac-glossary.htm#ODA) to countries on the DAC List of ODA Recipients (http://www.oecd.org/dac/dac-glossary.htm#DAC_List) in the following subsectors as explained in the list of Creditor Reporting System purpose codes available here, http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/purposecodessectorclassification.htm: \n\t11110 Education policy and administrative management \n\t12110 Health policy and administrative management \n\t13010 Population policy and administrative management \n\t14010 Water sector policy and administrative management \n\t15110 Public sector policy and administrative management \n\t15210 Security system management and reform \n\t16020 Employment policy and administrative management \n\t16030 Housing policy and administrative management \n\t21010 Transport policy and administrative management \n\t22010 Communications policy and administrative management \n\t23110 Energy policy and administrative management \n\t24010 Financial policy and administrative management \n\t31110 Agricultural policy and administrative management \n\t31210 Forestry policy and administrative management \n\t31310 Fishing policy and administrative management \n\t32110 Industrial policy and administrative management \n\t32210 Mineral/mining policy and administrative management \n\t32310 Construction policy and administrative management \n\t33110 Trade policy and administrative management \n\t33210 Tourism policy and administrative management \n\t41010 Environmental policy and administrative management",,ODA covers the value of both financial and technical assistance for development purposes. The above sectors broadly correspond to the coverage of the SDGs and focus on capacity building and national planning opposed to the implementation of specific projects and programmes.,,,,,,,"Data on ODA are compiled by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development from returns submitted by its member countries and other aid providers. Data can be accessed here, http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/data.htm.",,,"The data are generally obtained on an activity level, and include numerous parameters. They can thus be disaggregated by provider and recipient country, by the groups of countries; and by each subsector assisted, by type of finance, and by type of resources provided.","Data are available for essentially all high-income countries, and for an increasing number of South-South providers, and means are available to report on triangular co-operation.","The data only address concessional flows for development and welfare purposes provided by governments. The OECD and other organisations also collect data on broader financial flows to developing countries, including non-concessional official flows, foreign direct investment, bank lending, export credits and other flows. The World Bank makes estimates of remittance flows, and the IMF compiles balance-of-payments data. The sustainable development focus and concordance of these other categories of flows with national development plans is less clear, and substantial further work would be required to arrive at an agreed measure of non-ODA official and private flows ""for implementing effective and targeted capacity-building in developing countries to support national plans to implement all the sustainable development goals"". Nevertheless, in the medium term, data will also be available on Total Official Support to Sustainable Development (TOSSD) to the same sectors. \nThe degree of consonance of individual aid activities with the Sustainable Development Goals will also depend on the level of commitment to the Goals by the provider and developing countries concerned, and on the extent to which donors avoid using the codes to ""park"" assistance to the relevant sectors which does fit under a more specific code.","The data include a ""gender equality"" marker (http://www.oecd.org/investment/stats/37461060.pdf) which identifies individual projects that have a clear gender dimension. There are also dedicated purpose codes for activities specifically targeting gender equality or that aim to combat violence against women and girls (in preparation).",,"See the DAC Aid Statistics page, http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/documentupload/MeasuringAid50yearsDACStats.pdf.","OECD 2011, Measuring Aid, http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/documentupload/MeasuringAid50yearsDACStats.pdf.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  17.1,TRUE,17,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-17.pdf,20,"Promote a universal, rules-based, open, non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading system under the World Trade Organization, including through the conclusion of negotiations under its Doha Development Agenda.",17.10.1,Svjetski ponderirani prosjek carina,ITC,UNCTAD,"Worldwide weighted tariff-average is an indicator that provides the value of custom duties levied by every importing country from all their trading partners. The unit of measurement will be in % terms. All calculations are based on official data. However, in order to include all tariffs into the calculation, some rates which are not expressed in ad valorem form (e.g., specific duties) are converted in ad valorem equivalents (i.e. in per cent of the import value), The conversion is made at the tariff line level for each importer by using the unit value method. Import unit values are calculated from import values and quantities. Only a limited number of non-ad valorem tariff rates (i.e. technical duties) cannot be provided with ad valorem equivalents (AVE) and are excluded from the calculation. This methodology also allows for cross-country comparisons.",,The average level of customs tariff rates applied worldwide can be used as an indicator of the degree of success achieved by multilateral negotiations.,,,,,,,"Tariff data for the calculation of this indicator are retrieved form the ITC (MAcMap) - http://www.macmap.org/ - and WTO (IDB). Data from these 2 databases are also displayed on the World Integrated Trade Solution application http://wits.worldbank.org/ \nTariff data (MFN and preferences) are collected every year for more than 130 countries and territories. WTO data are received directly from WTO Members and are processed and verified. They are jointly validated by the members themselves. Calculations of ad valorem equivalents (AVE) are provided by ITC. \nTrade data for the calculation of weights and unit values are retrieved from ITC (Trade Map), WTO (IDB) and UNSD (COMTRADE) databases. Trade data has at least a one-year lag in terms of availability compared to tariffs. \nThis indicator can generally be compiled around March of each year. At that time (say year y), the indicator is compiled for (y-2), corresponding to the availability of detailed bi-lateral trade flows.",,,"This indicator can be disaggregated and analysed by type of tariffs (MFN tariffs and preferential tariffs), product sector, by geographical region and by level of development.",,"Tariffs are only part of the factors that can explain the degree of openness and transparency in the international trade arena. However, accurate estimates on non-tariff measures or of transparency indicator do not exist.",,Tariff data is available for overall more than 190 countries. Data are updated every year for approximately 130 countries.,"To further refine the quality of the information, additional sub-measurements could be calculated including: a) Tariff peaks (i.e. % of tariffs on some products that are considerably higher than usual, defined as above 15 per cent) and b) Tariff escalation (i.e. wherein a country applies a higher tariff rate to products at the later stages of production). These calculations were already provided by ITC as part of the MDG Gap Task Force Report. See the report for further information on the methodology at http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/mdg_gap/mdg_gap2014/2014GAP_FULL_EN.pdf",,,,,,,,,,WTO,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  17.11,TRUE,17,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-17.pdf,21,"Significantly increase the exports of developing countries, in particular with a view to doubling the least developed countries' share of global exports by 2020.",17.11.1,Udio zemalja u razvoju i manje razvijenih zemalja u svjetskom izvozu,ITC,UNCTAD,"From ITC, UNCTAD, WTO:\nThis indicator provides calculations of developing and LDCs exports of goods and services toward the rest of the World. The unit of measurement could be in % (developing countries' and LDCs share of global exports) or alternatively in value (i.e. USD '000). Alternatively, and in order to reflect the dual purpose of the target (i.e. increase of developing countries exports / doubling the LDCs share for global exports) 2 different indicators can be calculated out of the same data, namely: (1) least developed countries' share of global exports (in % terms), (2) exports of developing countries (in value terms). \nThe indicator will not include export of oil and arms.\n\n From UPU: \n Developing countries and LDCs' e-commerce flows at the export level (volumes and/or values, and by product): this indicator would be a volume or value index of international e-commerce flows from developing countries and LDCs to the rest of the world. International postal and parcel flows would be a proxy for international e-commerce flows since the ecommerce ecosystem heavily relies on the international postal and express infrastructure to transport ecommerce-related shipments.",,"From ITC, UNCTAD, WTO:\nThe indicator is self-explanatory and measures precisely what is required by the target.\n\n From UPU: \n E-commerce is likely to represent a significant share of international trade transactions by 2030. In order to avoid an e-commerce divide between developing and developed countries, trade policies must fully take into account this irreversible phenomenon. Moreover, international e-commerce will play an essential development role for micro, small and medium-sized enterprises in the coming two decades, particularly for those interested in internationalizing their activities.",,,,,,,"From ITC, UNCTAD, WTO:\nData on goods trade is retrieved from ITC (Trade Map), WTO (IDB) and UNSD (COMTRADE) databases. For services trade, WTO, ITC, UNCTAD have harmonized their databases and are now providing the same information. \nThis indicator can generally be compiled around March of each year. At that time (say year y), the indicator is compiled for (y-2), corresponding to the availability of detailed bi-lateral trade flows.\n\n From UPU: \n The indicator can be estimated thanks to data available in UPU's international tracking systems for parcels and postal items enabling real-time analysis of billions of data records.",,,"From ITC, UNCTAD, WTO:\nThis indicator can be disaggregated and analysed by product sector, by geographical region and by level of development.\n\n From UPU: \n The possibility of accessing tracking systems data enables the maximal disaggregation level from a geographic perspective, with detailed information available for any location involved in international postal and parcels exchanges within a country. Moreover, the forthcoming systematic use of an electronic customs declaration system by UPU member countries will considerably enrich the data with product information at the most disaggregated HS classification level for international trade.",,"From ITC, UNCTAD, WTO:\nTo further refine the quality of the information, additional sub-measurement could be calculated including a) Exports of high technological content as proportion of total exports, b) Export diversification (by product; by market destination). This sub measurement can be calculated only for goods trade and not for services trade. \nSynergies could be created with target 8.2 (as a measurement of diversification, technological upgrading and innovation) and target 2.3 (to measure the increase of productivity of small scale food producers and the enhanced opportunities to access market and value addition segments). In terms of limitation, \n\tConcerning missing data for trade in goods (especially in the case of LDCs) ITC (Trade Map) uses mirror data to complete the information and UNCTAD provides systematic estimates. \n\tInformation on services trade is less detailed.\n\n From UPU: \n While international postal exchanges reflect the development of international e-commerce very well, a small number of international postal transactions represents exchanges between individuals only. However, the latter exchanges are typically not submitted to commercial customs declaration.",From UPU: \nThe proportion of male or female recipients of postal items could be estimated by sampling postal traffic in each country.,Data on goods trade is available for almost all countries and territories. \nData on services trade are available for almost 200 countries but bilateral data are scarcer and as well as information at the higher level of detail,"From UPU: \nPostal, parcel and express delivery networks are dealing with at least half a trillion economic transactions every year. Furthermore, post offices represent the largest physical retail network in the world with over 650,000 offices worldwide.",From UPU: \n UNCTAD. (2015). Information Economy Report 2015. Unlocking the Potential of E-commerce for Developing Countries. UNCTAD. At: http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/ier2015_en.pdf \nUPU Postal Statistics website: http://www.upu.int/en/resources/postal-statistics/about-postal-statistics.html,2.3,8.2,,,,,,,WTO,, UPU,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  17.12,TRUE,17,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-17.pdf,23,"Realize timely implementation of duty-free and quota-free market access on a lasting basis for all least developed countries, consistent with World Trade Organization decisions, including by ensuring that preferential rules of origin applicable to imports from least developed countries are transparent and simple, and contribute to facilitating market access.",17.12.1,"Ponderirane prosječne carine koje se primjenjuju na zemlje u razvoju, najmanje razvijene zemlje i male otočne zemlje u razvoju",ITC,UNCTAD,Similar calculations were already used for the calculation of MDG 8.7 (Average tariffs imposed by developed countries on agricultural products and textiles and clothing from developing countries). For reference purposes see the Millennium Development Goals Report 2015 available at http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2015_MDG_Report/pdf/MDG%202015%20rev%20(July%201).pdf (p. 64),,"The reduction of average tariff on key sector as agriculture can represent a proxy of the level of commitment of developed country to improve market access conditions. As it was done for MDG 8.7, the term ""key sector"" has to be interpreted as those sectors of particular interest for LDCs and developing countries exports. The list of key sectors used by the MDG indicator 8.7 (i.e. agriculture, textile and clothing) might have to be reviewed.",,,,,,,"Tariff data for the calculation of this indicator are retrieved form the ITC (MAcMap) - http://www.macmap.org/ - and WTO (IDB). Data from these 2 databases are also displayed on the World Bank/UNCTAD World Integrated Trade Solution application http://wits.worldbank.org/ \nTariff data (MFN and preferences) are collected every year for more than 120 countries and territories. WTO data are received directly from WTO Members and are processed and verified. They are jointly validated by the members themselves. Calculations of ad valorem equivalents (AVE) are provided by ITC. \nTrade data for the calculation of weights and unit values are retrieved from ITC (Trade Map), WTO (IDB) and UNSD (COMTRADE) databases. Trade data has at least a one-year lag in terms of availability compared to tariffs. \nThis indicator can generally be compiled around March of each year. At that time (say year y), the indicator is compiled for (y-2), corresponding to the availability of detailed bi-lateral trade flows.",,,"This indicator can be disaggregated and analysed by type of tariffs (MFN tariffs and preferential tariffs), product sector, by geographical region and by level of development.",,"ITC/UNCTAD/WTO endorse the suggestion proposed by India, during the open consultation, to reword the indicator to read: ""Average tariffs for exports faced by developing countries and LDCs by key source from developed countries"" and by the United States to focus only on LDCs. The two suggestions will not change the calculation methodology behind the indicator. Agreement on these points should be sought during the next IAEG meeting. \nIn terms of limitations: \n\tTariffs are only part of the trade limitation factors, especially when looking at exports of developing or least developed countries under non-reciprocal preferential treatment, that set criteria for eligibility. Accurate estimates on non-tariff measures do not exist, thus the calculations on market access are limited to tariffs only. \n\tA full coverage of preferential schemes of developed countries has been used for the computation, but preferential treatment may not be fully used by developing countries' exporters for different reasons such as the inability of certain exporters to meet eligibility criteria (i.e., complying with rules of origin). \n\tThe indicator only addresses the tariff situation facing developing countries' exports and not their own tariff profiles, despite the fact that trade openness, by itself, is conducive to export promotion.",,"Concerning the feasibility rating, data is already available.",,,,,,,,,,,WTO,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  17.13,FALSE,17,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-17.pdf,25,"Enhance global macroeconomic stability, including through policy coordination and policy coherence.",17.13.1,Glavni makroekonomski pokazatelji,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  17.14,FALSE,17,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-17.pdf,26,Enhance policy coherence for sustainable development.,17.14.1,Broj zemalja koje posjeduju mehanizme za poboljšanje koherentnosti politika održivog razvoja,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  17.15,FALSE,17,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-17.pdf,27,Respect each country's policy space and leadership to establish and implement policies for poverty eradication and sustainable development.,17.15.1,Mjera u kojoj se koriste nacionalni okviri rezultata i instrumenti planiranja od strane pružatelja razvojne suradnje,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  17.16,TRUE,17,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-17.pdf,28,"Enhance the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology and financial resources, to support the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals in all countries, in particular developing countries.",17.16.1,Broj zemalja koje izvješćuju o napretku okvira za praćenje učinkovitosti razvoja s više dionika koji podržavaju postizanje ciljeva održivog razvoja,OECD,UNDP Secretariat of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation,A country is considered to have a mutual assessment of progress in place when at least 4 out of 5 of the following criteria are met: \n\tAn aid policy or partnership policy defines the country's development co-operation priorities. \n\tNational targets for effective development co-operation exist for both the developing country government and providers of development co-operation. \n\tProgress has been assessed regularly and jointly by government and providers at the senior level in the past two years. \n\tLocal governments and non-executive stakeholders have been actively involved in these reviews. \n\tThe comprehensive results of the review have been made public in a timely manner.,,"Development processes are driven by the contributions and the concerted efforts of multiple actors, including government authorities, providers of development co-operation, the private sector, civil society and others. Strong multi-stakeholder partnerships provide an enabling environment for greater development effectiveness. In this regard, mutual accountability in between the relevant stakeholders participating in development efforts can enhance the quality and strength of these partnerships. \nMutual assessment reviews are national exercises that engage both developing country authorities and providers of development co-operation, as well as other stakeholders, at the senior level in a mutual performance review. These reviews should ideally be conducted through inclusive dialogues involving a broad range of government ministries; providers of development co-operation (including bilateral, multilateral, and global initiatives); as well as other stakeholders, including parliamentarians, local governments, the private sector, and civil society organisations (referred to as ""non-executive"" stakeholders). These assessments should be done regularly (every one to two years).",,,,,,"Yes. In 2013, 59% of surveyed countries were determined to have mutual assessment reviews in place. A baseline can be calculated using the second monitoring round being conducted in 2015.","The data is collected as part of the monitoring efforts of the monitoring survey for the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation every 1 ' 2 years. The first such monitoring survey was carried out in 2013, and the second round is being conducted in 2015. The indicator based on a set of different criteria is also available from the surveys on monitoring the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness conducted in 2006, 2008, and 2011. The indicator for these years differs in that engagement of non-executive stakeholders was encouraged, while in 2013 the inclusiveness criterion required their active involvement.",,,The data can be further disaggregated according to each of the 5 criteria used to assess mutual assessments of progress.,"The indicator is well-suited for global monitoring, and global aggregates are calculated as the percentage of countries which have mutual assessment reviews in place.",Data is limited to those countries which participate in the monitoring survey for the Global Partnership.,,"Global aggregates are available for the 2006, 2008, and 2011 surveys on monitoring the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness as well as the 2014 and 2015 monitoring surveys of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation. The Paris surveys on monitoring the Paris Declaration of Aid Effectiveness covered 34, 55, and 78 countries, respectively. The 2014 monitoring round of the Global Partnership covered 46 countries representing roughly 46% of global Country Programmable aid. For the 2015 monitoring round, more than 60 developing countries have preliminarily confirmed participation.",Information on the indicator as well as the monitoring surveys for the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation can be found by consulting the progress report from the 2014 monitoring round at: http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/development/making-development-co-operationmore-effective_9789264209305-en#page1 \nInformation on the surveys on monitoring Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness can be found by consulting the 2011 survey report: http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/2011surveyonmonitoringtheparisdeclaration.htm,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  17.17,FALSE,17,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-17.pdf,31,"Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships.",17.17.1,Iznos u američkim dolarima namijenjen javno-privatnim partnerstvima za infrastrukturu,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  17.18,TRUE,17,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-17.pdf,32,"By 2020, enhance capacity-building support to developing countries, including for least developed countries and small island developing States, to increase significantly the availability of high-quality, timely and reliable data disaggregated by income, gender, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability, geographic location and other characteristics relevant in national contexts.",17.18.1,Pokazatelj statističkih kapaciteta za praćenje Ciljeva održivog razvoja,TST,,"The ability of National Statistical Offices and other bodies within countries to report on the diversity of SDG indicators is itself a measure of capacity, particularly when we think about the eventual complexity of the indicator framework as well as the points of disaggregation. Right now, a number of the existing indicators are calculated or modeled at global level, and the purpose of this indicator is to measure the shift in that calculation process to the national level. \nDisaggregation would be assessed on the basis of the language of target 17.18, as well as the metadata and agreements on disaggregation for each indicator itself. The baseline and targets for this indicators will be determined in a later stage using trend data on the MDGs reporting and independent assessments of current capacity of countries for reporting towards the final results framework and indicators for the SDGs.",,,,,,,,,MDG reporting databases (UNDESA and UNDP) plus baseline assessment in 2015 by UNFPA.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  17.18,FALSE,17,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-17.pdf,32,"By 2020, enhance capacity-building support to developing countries, including for least developed countries and small island developing States, to increase significantly the availability of high-quality, timely and reliable data disaggregated by income, gender, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability, geographic location and other characteristics relevant in national contexts.",17.18.2,Broj zemalja koje imaju nacionalne zakone o statistici u skladu s temeljnim načelima službene statistike,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  17.18,FALSE,17,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-17.pdf,32,"By 2020, enhance capacity-building support to developing countries, including for least developed countries and small island developing States, to increase significantly the availability of high-quality, timely and reliable data disaggregated by income, gender, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability, geographic location and other characteristics relevant in national contexts.",17.18.3,"Broj zemalja koje imaju nacionalni statistički plan koji se u potpunosti financira i provodi, prema izvoru financiranja",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  17.19,FALSE,17,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-17.pdf,33,"By 2030, build on existing initiatives to develop measurements of progress on sustainable development that complement gross domestic product, and support statistical capacity-building in developing countries.",17.19.1,Vrijednost (izražena u američkim dolarima) svih resursa stavljenih na raspolaganje za jačanje statističkih kapaciteta u zemljama u razvoju,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  17.19,FALSE,17,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-17.pdf,33,"By 2030, build on existing initiatives to develop measurements of progress on sustainable development that complement gross domestic product, and support statistical capacity-building in developing countries.",17.19.2,"Udio zemalja koje su (a) u posljednjih 10 godina provele najmanje jedan popis stanovništva, kućanstava i stanova te (b) ostvarile 100-postotnu evidenciju rođenih i 80-postotnu evidenciju umrlih",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  