 So good morning and good afternoon everyone. Nice to see you again for the second day of the report training on STG for one indicator. I hope you have had a nice end of the day yesterday, and that you have told a little bit about all the discussion we have had yesterday. So before starting, let me recapitulate a little bit quickly what we haven't learned yesterday. So we have introduced the SDG indicator two for one, and as Panjana explained as one of the 11 subindicators that are composed in the SDG two for one. So the first one, which is the first one of the economic dimension. And then we have all the methodology to calculate this indicator with also a practical exercise on Excel. So it has been a very interesting day full of concepts and many doubts and we clarified through the questions answer sessions. So today we will continue with all the other indicators. Let's hope that we manage to cover all of them. And then we will have at the end of today, a presentation from a colleague of us on the agris and 50 by 20 initiative. I doubt we will manage to do all the presentations but let's see how goes the discussion of course if we have time we also move forward with the presentation on the on the question and that's the native data sources. So if there is a bit some rules, you will see a few participants as families to which are the lead representative country and then we have many other colleagues that are present only as a listener. So probably you will not see the names of these colleagues. So today we have a meeting in mute mode, and a mutual stuff only when we give you the floor. Today we try to manage a little bit better the questions answer sessions because we need really to cover still many other presentations during today and tomorrow so we, we hope we can, we can be a little bit quicker. Of course, we will answer all the questions so in case in the end we don't have time to really answer all the question we will answer them by email so do not worry. And then also the these sessions are being recorded, and we will send you the recording at the end of the three days. And also, please you see you have the English and French interpretation available on the bottom bar. So in case you want to follow in French you put in French and in English you put the English channel. If you stay on off. It means that you will see me listen the original audio so English when we speak and then French when some colleagues from from speak French so it's up to you. I'm glad that I said everything so I will give immediately again the floor to a fun yet for continuing the presentation. Any question and thoughts I'm here through the chat and I will be happy to help you for any content you have. Thank you and I have a nice second day of this training. Thank you very much. Again, all of them on this second day of planning on one. So we started we left yesterday, the training, what we covered funny if you touched upon that we start off with. The SC 241 indicator in general. We covered, you know, the first sub indicator in economic dimension. The second sub indicator economic dimension called the net income team is the coverage for this sub indicator is all from. What I was referring to me in my, and yesterday for this particular submit. We have kept the reference period here. I will explain as to why. So, before, you know, I start folding the. Next indicator, let me give you a brief context as to as to what we buy net income within the context of SDG 241. So, an important part of stability in agriculture is the economic value of culture holding to a large extent by. In the context to for what he is using that the farmer is a farming operation on it's a culture holding. And use of information on the holding economic performance measured using ability on income will support better decision making both at the micro and macro economic levels. Performance measures drive behavior, better information on performance can alter behavior and decision making by the government and producers, both in the large scale commercial farming and medium and small scale subsist. So, the SDG 241 provides two options approaches on how to report on this sub indicator, a sophisticated approach, which FAO, obviously is recommending it's more precise, and a second approach which is more simplified. This is based on farmer declaration about his net income in the calendar years. Sorry, sorry, sorry to interrupt you. So this sounds this is your voice at the beginning at the beginning was breaking. Now it's much better, but it's not really 100% so I don't know if you can put yourself in a more internet connection. So, just to inform you. I know if you can do yourself or your wifi or something, or your. Okay, so is it better now. Yes, yes, I will inform you in case your voice breaks again. So, so what are the options. The first option is more sophisticated option. The second one is a simplified approach, which is based on farmer declaration. The next one. No, it's not, it's not working. You're still breaking the voice. You want maybe to disconnect to reconnect again. I'm thinking about. Okay, so let me. Okay, so I will take a pause for maybe like five minutes. Let me reconnect. Okay. Okay, thank you very much. Yes, so he's disconnecting now and then he will connect again. So let's wait he is back in the meantime in case you have any questions out so you want to write something the question and answer box your mother welcome so yes as another reminder please. Any question. Please should be put in the question and answer box, and not in the chat. This will allow us to better organize the questions, because in the chat box sometimes messages are lost. So Stephanie just confirming as to how my voice is now. Okay, now it seems, it seems good. Okay. Yes, much better. Good, good. So, sorry, sorry for this slide hiccup. Let me recollect as to what I just said. So, for measuring the net farm income as I mentioned we are offering or we are suggesting or recommending two approaches. The first one is sophisticated approach obviously it's more complicated it's more data demanding. And the second one is a more simplified approach which is based on farmer declaration about his net farm income. So, using the sophisticated approach, the net farm income is calculated using the following formula. Which is, which is given here. So then NFI is, is an abbreviation for net farm income. CR is total farm cash receipts, including direct program payments, YK is income in kind. OE is operating expenses after rebates. This includes labor cost as well. DEP or debt is depreciation and delta IN is value of invention change. So, the sophisticated approach, which is adopted from Statistics Canada is recommended. However, it's used by the countries is made conditional if data on farm financial records. That is, documents, or daily, weekly or monthly information about the transactions that happens on the farms are available. In general, large scale commercial firms maintain detailed financial records using which the net farm income can be calculated. In terms of a calculation of net farm income with this more sophisticated approach, what do we need as data items. So first item that we need is value of output. This is the same concept that we discussed yesterday as part of the productivity sub indicator. So what we need, you know, as data items is the total physical quantities of the products that are produced by the agriculture holding multiplied by the farm gate prices. Okay, and this will give us the value of output for crops, if it is a crop producing agriculture holding for livestock if it's a livestock focused agriculture holding. Or a mix of both. If there are other activities which I, which I explained yesterday in my presentation as part of the productivity sub indicator. If there are other secondary activity activities on top of crops and livestock produced by the agriculture holding, then we would need their quantities and prices as well. But until so far, in terms of data items, we are asking nothing new. Okay, so this is the same information that will be utilized for the productivity sub indicator as well as for the net farm income sub indicator. In addition to this, what we need, you know, for calculation of net farm income using the sophisticated approach are direct program payments income in kind and value of inventory change. Now all these concepts that you are seeing here. You know, the detailed description or definitions of these concepts is given in the link which is which is provided in the bottom of this slide. So this is one side of the equation. Okay. This is one, you know, set of variables or data items that we need for us to estimate the total revenue or turn over of the agriculture holding. Now, obviously for us to calculate the income, we need to subtract subtract the cost of production from that from that revenue. So that we are able to estimate the income of the farm. So for this what we need is both operating expenses, as well as fixed costs and depreciation. So by operating expenses we mean labor expenses that is wages that are paid in cash or in kind fertilizer expenses pesticide expenses fuel expenses electricity cost of feeding the animal. And then costs taxes paid depreciation charges and any other charges that the farmer is is utilizing in order to produce the output in that particular year. So this is this is obviously more data demanding approach that I just explained which was adopted from Statistics Canada. Now, we, we, we thought during the methodological development process that you know, especially in developing countries in subsistence agriculture holding financial records are not usually maintained. So collecting information on all these data items in an agriculture survey might be maybe too demanding for for for developing countries, and hence, as I mentioned earlier, we suggested a simplified approach. So the first simplified approach is, we only collect we only ask countries to collect information on the output value, which I explained earlier on the operating expenses. And in this option, we suggest countries to ignore depreciation and value of inventory change. Okay. So the first simplified approach. The second simplified approach is, we just ask the farmer. Okay, as to how his agriculture holding performed in terms of profitability over the last three years so it's a direct question to the farmer, whereby we ask him, was your holding profitable in the last three calendar years. Okay. Or was your holding profitable in the in two out of three years or one out of three years and based on his declaration to this or answer to this question. We then we then decide as to what's the economic liability of this particular agriculture holding is. Now, for the sake of reducing data collection burden on the countries, we have integrated or we have designed this question in the survey module that we have developed for STG 241 that I mentioned yesterday. So, in terms of how do we then assign sustainability statuses, or the, how do we use the traffic light approach for this particular sub indicator, the agriculture holdings, and the area that it is basically where the production is assigned green status, if its profitability was above zero for the last three consecutive years. The pro the holding is classified as yellow or acceptable, if its profitability or net farm income was above zero for at least one of the past three consecutive years. The agriculture holding is classified as red or unsustainable if the net farm income or profitability was below zero for all past the consecutive years. Now, as you may have noticed the threshold for this sub indicator is set using three years data or recall by the holder or the farmer. So, it's to make adequate assessment of the farm profitability over an extended period to account for a bad air due due to market failure, that is, low prices of outputs or high prices of inputs in a in a certain year, or negative ecological or environmental factors that could be impacted the farm profitability, that is heavy or untimely rains, floods, past attacks, etc. So, as I mentioned earlier, as part of the survey module that we have designed to collect information on I see two for one, we only have a question about about the farm profitability, whereby we ask the farmer what the profitability status of agriculture holding was, you know, in the past three consecutive years. So based on that, as you can see here, you know holding one was profitable in two out of the three years and hence we assigned it a yellow status. So holding two was profitable in three out of the three years, and thus it was classified as green or desirable. And lastly holding one number 181 was unprofitable in all three years and hence that it was assigned, you know, red status. The numbers that I'm showing you here, this was basically a pilot test that we carried out in 2018-19 in Bangladesh. And as you can see here, using the approach that I just explained based on the fact as to how profitable the agriculture holding was in the in the three consecutive years. We assigned the farms and its agriculture areas, green, yellow and red, we then aggregated greens, yellows and reds. The agriculture land areas, and then we divided by the nationally representative agriculture land area to derive, you know, the proportion of agriculture area that is classified as being yellow and red. Let me let me just show you the Excel sheet that I was showing you yesterday. Stefania, please confirm if you can see it. Yes. Okay. So as I was mentioning earlier, the question that we are asking in the survey module is how often this holding was profitable. Profitability means that value of production was greater than the total cost, whether fixed or variable. The reference period is last three calendar year. So, as you can see the respondent can reply with the following four options. Profitable profitable for all three years profitable in one out of three years profitable in two out of three years and profitable in three out of three years and depending on his or her reply, we then assign green, yellow and red status to agriculture holding and its agricultural land area. So this was you know the simplified approach that that I was talking about. Now, for the more sophisticated approach, as I explained to you earlier yesterday, what we need information on is the value of output for which we need physical quantities, as well as the average or latest price, so that we calculate the total value of production for the crops for the byproducts of the crops, the same approach for the livestock. As well, the total physical output as well as the average or the latest prices, the products that are produced using livestock, its quantity as well as prices, and the quantity and prices of other on from products or activities. If if produce on top of crops and livestock as secondary activities. Okay, so this is the revenue side of the thing. And now we need information on the on the cost as well. What was the total cost of producing crops and our livestock and its byproducts. How much were the wages, cash wages, labor in kind fertilizer cost pesticide costs, fuel costs electricity costs and so on. So, once this information is collected using the survey for for for all the agriculture holdings. What we need information on is what we then need to do is, I'm focusing first on the sophisticated approach because the simplified approach is very straightforward and easy. So just one question, and you can classify the agriculture holding as being yellow and red. The sophisticated approach. We need more data, more data in terms of production every year, its quantities and prices, as well as information on the cost of inputs every year for three years. And you can imagine, this is more, you know, data demanding. So we have the value of output. We have information on direct program payments we have information on income in kind value of inventory change for three years. The cost of inputs for three years, and then we start subtracting the cost from the revenue for each year for us to estimate the exact situation as to whether the holding was profitable in that particular year. And based on as to whether the profitability was greater than zero or less than zero, we then start assigning the holding, you know, the green yellow and red statuses. So as you can see here holding number one which is exemplified here, this holding was profitable only in one out of the three years and hence it was classified as as yellow. And so on, we will, we will repeat the same exercise for the rest of the agriculture holding. So if you have any question, please, you know, please feel free to, feel free to ask that. Okay, thank you, we have a one first question. It's in French, so I'm reading it in French. So you mean to say what what is needed in Excel format I'm just just just just wanted to clarify. I'm just asking not utilization. I'm not sure what does he mean in French but I imagine something that explain the, all the steps that needs to be done. Maybe if Mr. Oscar can explain a little bit better what does he mean. No, for sure. I, I mentioned it yesterday. And let me, you know, emphasize and repeat it again that all the documents that are needed for countries to estimate SDG 241 have already been translated into into French. Now, this Excel sheet, which we are showing you in English will be available in French as well, and we will share that with you. So he is, he's saying something else. I wanted to know how you're going to do for the agricultural research for which countries are at the same level. Well, I mean this is, this is something which we will discuss later today during one of the session on agris survey program and 50 by 2030 initiative. One of our colleague Mr. Flavio Bolliger from the survey team will will introduce this project, which is backed by FAO World Bank and eFAT, whereby we are supporting 50 developing countries or low or lower middle income countries from across the globe with agriculture survey program. So that's, that's one of the initiative whereby all SDG 241 plus other farm survey based SDG indicator that FAO is custodian agency for have been integrated into that project. So if your country is part of that project, then obviously FAO and these other multilateral institution in the next years will support you in technically for you to be able to standardize and customize your agriculture service for you to be able to report on all these indicators. So that's that's one, you know, area of work, which will be explained in detail later on. Now, in terms of when will all countries be able to have SDG 241 needs incorporated into their agriculture service. This is something, you know, which we can influence to a certain extent through these projects which I just mentioned agris survey program and 50 by 2030 initiative. Else rest it's up to the countries right if they believe that sustainability in agriculture is an important issue for them to to manage at the country level for them to improve the situation about agriculture sector. Then, you know, for sustainability of this particular process. We expect countries to be taking, you know, some proactive steps for them to be able to integrate the SDG needs into their agriculture surveys so that they are able to. So on this very point as to when countries will be able to have a uniform agriculture survey. This is something of, you know, which is, which is a country decision. We cannot force countries to do something we can only being a UN agency recommend support to the best of our knowledge and our abilities and resource permitting. We can we can support them and facilitate them in adopting and implementing SDGs, but as for the decision regarding customization of agriculture surveys of given countries concern that decision is solely and uniquely up to the countries. Okay, thank you we have another question isn't it difficult for the farmers to declare the profitability, some crops are consumed, some are sold. How do the farmers compare the cost and the value of all the crops produced declare the profitability. Yes, we are well aware of this issue. And hence, for this particular sub indicator. We have to train very well the numerators or the surveyors, or the people who are administering the questionnaire in the field. We have to educate them, and we have to train them properly. And all this information about how to train the numerator is given in the numerator manual that we have developed. Now, once the numerator is in the field with the with the respondent or with the holder or the farmer asking him questions. He has to explain the concept of profitability, very thoroughly to the farmer. And he has to tell him that basically or her that, you know, while estimating the total value of output, you have to think about, you know, all the produce that you self consumed. And you use sold in market. So whatever is produced on the holding irrespective as to whether it's consumed, or it is sold off. This concept needs to be explained to the farmer by the by the numerator. And secondly, farmers are very clever. You know, and this is this is my understanding that we shouldn't be underestimating their intelligence they know as to as to how much expenses, they are incurring for producing agriculture products on their agriculture holding. They may not be keeping the financial records, but then they have an idea as to whether they made any profit, or are they incurred losses. Okay, another question. Is it clear that the simplified is for students and farming households. I am correct to conclude that the sophisticated approach is form of is for commercial farming system. We have basically offered a set of options for countries to to consider while collecting information on this particular sub indicator. Now, if the commercial farming sector in a country is well advanced, and they are keeping financial records of all the agriculture activities on on, you know, throughout the year. Then we would suggest yes, have the simplified approach for the household sector and the sophisticated approach for the large scale commercial farms. Or else, you know you can use the simplified approach to begin with for both household and non household sector. So it is entirely up to the country. In terms of which approach they want to adopt or implement, of course, adopting the more sophisticated option will mean that you have to have more questions in your agriculture survey. Because it will be costly to administer that agriculture survey. But you know the benefit of having sophisticated approach would be that your estimates will be more precise. It is entirely up to you, whichever approach you may want to use in accordance with the, with what's the situation like in terms of resources available to the national statistical office or Minister of Agriculture, whosoever is responsible for administering agriculture survey. Let me give the floor to Mr Alexis Mutembutzi. Please you have the floor Alexis. Okay, thank you. My question is in relation to the timing, or the time asked to a farmer to precise if his agacha has been profitable. I was wondering on the experience in my country. I'm from Rwanda. Our agriculture survey is conducted each season. And we have to get the information from the farmer of the previous season. So I was wondering how we can get information from the farmer of the previous three years. This means in my in the context of our country. It includes nine seasons. Going back. So, my question is to, is it possible to adjust this question, according to the context of the country, maybe instead of asking all these three years, or maybe adjusted to the seasons and see how we can compile this indicator because I see difficult to get information from the farmer of the last previous nine seasons. No, I totally understand that. I mean, recalling information about nine seasons, which which stands over three years, maybe very complicated for the farmer. Yes, we can discuss this further in a in a bilateral session as to whether we can, we can have, you know, a customized solution for countries based on based on seasons rather than rather than years. So, but for the time being, the methodology as it sits now is is based on based on three years. So, and this is this is what we are, you know, recommending to countries to implement. Of course, we can we can have a separate discussion on on case by case basis for Rwanda as to as to how can we modify this particular sub indicator so that you can collect information in a in a in a cost effective way. Okay, thank you. Okay, let me give the floor to Mr. Baoubadi. Hello, thank you very much for the talk. In fact, I'm going to do the same thing that we did earlier. Yes, in fact, the problem is that we compare the net profit of exploitation. Yeah, as, as I, as I replied to the previous question, my, my answer would be the same. So in terms of, in terms of some agriculture service. There is, you know, especially the one which we, which FAO is is recommending to countries which is, which is agris survey program, and this 50 by 2030 initiative. I believe over there, there are questions about previous seasons as well. Okay, but going back three years for nine seasons, which certainly would be challenging. And we understand that. So, let us have this discussion by literally, I will, I will basically have this with Mr. Flavio Bolliger who is a technical person in charge of agris survey program. And based on the conclusion of that discussion, I will then reward to you about this question as to whether we can tailor this sub indicator in terms of in terms of its recall period to something which is manageable. Okay, we have another question. It's in French. So, actually, as, as I highlighted earlier, the rationale behind us having each sub indicator is given at length and in very detailed way, and in the support documents that I've been mentioning, you know, time and again. So, if you are in process of administering your agriculture survey in the next months, or in the next time period, maybe it's in one year. I believe that it is the right moment for you to, for you to start customizing your agriculture survey with the questions of two for one for you to be able to collect information on on on these sub indicators for the next data collection cycle. Now, my only concern would be the representativeness of the sample that you have selected for your agriculture survey, because for two for one, we are not only touching upon the economic aspects but we are touching upon the environmental aspects as well. So the sample needs to be rich enough for it to be able to have estimates which are which are reliable for each sub indicator, but any in any case. The very first step is for a country to analyze as to what the gaps are in their agriculture survey with a way as to two for one data requirements. Once those gaps are mapped, then you know the additional questions that needs to be incorporated into your agriculture survey is the is the next step. So I think if, if, if you are planning on administering your agriculture survey in the coming months. It may be the right time for you to integrate these questions into your agriculture survey for you to be able to report on the indicator. Okay, we have I think the last intervention for now so I give the floor to Mr. I have a question on, I don't know if this information seems very interesting, perhaps it is because I ask a lot of questions. The file that you have developed, I think it is very interesting, and it will allow us, for the country to be able to treat these data with which we will collect. So I think the FAO, its goal is to have the data in all countries so that, well, so that all countries are at the same level. My question was, is it possible at the level of the FAO to promote the project of Contristat? Contristat, as you know, a very ambitious project is important for all countries that will allow all countries to be at the same level. That is to say, even if we do not realize, even if there is not a lot of means in the countries, but with this project of Contristat, who is in the aim of updating the file in the site, use this data directly, if there is not an agricultural survey for every year. As you know, all countries currently have economic means for the COVID pandemic. So, is it possible to promote this project, which is also important for the countries? I know that there is already a country that is dedicated to this project and that has already started to work, but there is also this country that is not yet in the project. Thank you. I think I'm going to answer this question. Thank you for the question. Personally, I was responsible for Contristat's FAO, so I can answer these questions well. Unfortunately, the projects in terms of assistances to the country were finished in 2019. So, it was a project that lasted more than 10 years and we did either the assistances to the country and either build the website for data dissemination. It was a project that was funded by several foundations. The largest was the Foundation of Bill and Melinda Gates. After the assistance of the country, the FAO had a project to finish the assistances, but the website was still available for the countries to disseminate the data on its own. Unfortunately, the FAO's financial assistance cannot be removed at the moment. So, the answer to your question, despite being a good question and a good suggestion, is not possible. So, the project has officially ended in 2019. Mr. Fania, you may want to summarize the question and then maybe you were part of the FAO staff, right? Yes. Yes, so maybe you may want to have some reaction to this question. Yes, I already replied. Okay, you already replied, okay. Okay. So what was the summary of your reply? Yeah, you have. In English, I just said that unfortunately, the assistance to the countries, both financial and technical assistance has ended in 2019. So the FAO now is the website of countries that is still available for the countries to put their data in disseminate the information continuously among all the countries, but FAO, unfortunately, does not provide any more any kind of assistance on that project, although the website is still available for the countries to use them. Okay. Good. Okay. Let me see. I don't think we have any other questions. I think we are done. So, now, now that we have covered the net from income sub indicator, the third and the final sub indicator in the economic dimension is the risk mitigation mechanisms. Resilience has emerged as a key factor in sustainability. A Brazilian entails absorptive anticipatory and adoptive capacities and refers to the properties of the system that allow agriculture holdings to deal with external shocks and stresses, and to persist and continue to be well functioning. In the context of SDG 241, the following external shocks are considered. Drought, which is a prolonged period of abnormally low rain leading to shortage of water, flood and overflow of large amounts of water beyond its normal limits, especially over what is normally dry land. The best are destructive insect or other animal that take crops, food, livestock, etc. that can also include heat waves. Market shock, any demand or supply shocks that alter the price matching equilibrium in the market price reduction for the commodity produced by the agriculture holding is one example. The stock coping mechanism or mitigation strategy so that the farms continue to be sustainable. The SDG 241 proposes that the agriculture holding should have access to or availed insurance, which is a preventive protection measure to protect the holding against external shocks. Access to or availed credit, which may have been obtained from formal or informal sources, such as banks relatives or local money lenders. And lastly, the fact as to whether the agriculture holding is diversified. The diversification here is defined as the share of a single agriculture commodity produced, or activity carried out is not greater than 66% in the total value of production of agriculture. Now, the first two items access to or avail credit and access to and avail insurance are fairly easy to collect information on. You know, this is one question in an agriculture survey, whereby we asked the farmer as to whether he has access to the following risk mitigation mechanisms. Do you have access to or avail credit. Do you have access to or avail insurance. And then you know, based on the answer of the farmer we can we can know as to whether whether these two mitigation mechanisms are in place. The third mitigation mechanism which is farm diversification. For this we need a bit of calculation. Now, what sort of information do we require for us to estimate the farm or the agriculture holding diversification is fairly easy. We have already collected that information within the context of land productivity. Likewise, the same information was utilized for the net farm income. So what we need information on is the total output value of all the commodities produced by the agriculture holding. We sum it up, it's the total value of output. And then we start dividing the individual commodity output value divided by the total value of output and we see as to whether this percentage is less than or greater than 66%. If it is greater than 66%. This means that the agriculture holding is not diversified because it's reliant on or it's relying on for its revenues or for its output value on one single commodity. So the percentage is less than 66%. This means that the agriculture holding is relying on more than one source of output value, and hence, you know, it's it's exposure to risk is is minimized or diversified. So how then we classify the agriculture holdings as to whether you know these are green desirable yellow acceptable or red unsustainable it's fairly straightforward. If the holding has access to or availed at least two of the three mitigation mechanisms. If it has access to credit. Yes, if it has access to insurance. Yes. So if two are satisfied out of the three, then you know that holding will be classified as green. If the holding has access to one of the mitigation mechanism out of the three. The holding will be classified as yellow or acceptable. If it has no access to the three mitigation mechanism. If it has no access to credit. If it has no access to insurance. And on top of that, if it is a monoculture, right, if it is reliant on of, or if it is growing only one crop or raising only one type or kind of livestock. Sure, it's very vulnerable to external shocks that could be, as I mentioned earlier, it could be price failure, it could be droughts, it could be past attack, etc. So this is the again the data from the Bangladesh pilot study that was conducted in 2018 and 19. On top of the information that we have already collected and reanalyze for this particular submit indicator which is on the diversification path because not no new information is required. One question is asked about, you know, access to insurance and access to credit. As you can see here, the holding number one. The figure of commodity one in the total output value is 76% so this holding is basically reliant on one single commodity for its revenues or for its output value. So the on farm diversification in this case is zero this farm is not diversified. So it has access to credit and it has access to insurance. So the total number of adopted risk mitigation mechanisms are two out of three, and hence this holding is classified as green or desirable. The second holding, it's, you know, the revenue that it's generating from the three commodities that it is producing is is even. Okay. So 33% 33% and 34% from third commodity. And hence, you know, it's not relying on one single commodity for its revenue. So this farm is diversified as per the criteria that we have, we have device. However, it has no access to credit and no access to insurance. And hence, it has it is practicing on the one risk mitigation mechanism out of the three, and hence we classified it as yellow or acceptable. And the third one as you can see it's monoculture 100% income is coming from one commodity. No access to credit no access to insurance and hence this holding is classified as non sustainable. The last step for each sub indicator is the same. Once we classified the agriculture holding and by by by that reasoning, the agriculture land area that it is that it owns manages or operates. We then aggregate the areas classified as green, yellow and red, and then we start dividing it by the national representative agriculture land area to calculate the proportion of area that are green yellows and reds. So now let me show you the Excel sheet. So, for the risk mitigation mechanism. As I was mentioning to you earlier, the first question that we required for us to collect information on this particular sub indicator is the same. The same question that we, we asked for productivity. So the total output value or total value of production of crops by crop. It's by products, the total value of production of livestock and it's by products, the total value of production of other on farm activities or commodities produced by the agriculture holding. The fourth question, which I, which I just mentioned to you to see as to whether this holding has access to or availed the following mechanism for protection against external shops. The option is this holding has access to or avail credit. This holding had access to or avail insurance. Neither the holding had access to not avail any of the above mechanism for protection against external shops. So this is the only question that, in addition to the above, which are required for the other two sub indicator as well is needed for industries to report on this particular sub indicator. Now, how do we estimate as to whether the farm is diversified. Again, the same calculations are required. We need information on the average or the last price of the unit, we need the information on the physical quantities for the crops. As well as the livestock, if those are produced by the agriculture holding. We then estimate the total value of production based on the prices is simple multiplication of the prices with the physical quantities. As you can see here. So the total value of output is 1477. We then start dividing the respective individual commodity output value divided by the total output value which is 1477. So as you can see here, you know, this is done for each commodity. And then we need to check as to whether this percentage is about 66% for any of the commodity. If it is about 66% the farm will be classified as non diversified. If it is less than 66% then the farm will be declared as as diversified in terms of its production. So I stop here. Let's take a 10 minute break and instead of five minutes and then we resume in like 10 minutes. Okay. So we resume in 10 minutes sharp so at 1230 Italy, Italy time, we continue. So have a nice break. 1230 in Italy so we can continue with the presentations. We don't have any question and raise hands so as far as you can continue with the sub indicators in the economic in the environmental dimension. Perfect thank you, Stefania. So just bear me bear with me for a second. So, welcome back. And so, we have just finished the three sub indicators in the in the economic dimension. Now we have now entered the, the second dimension of SDG 241, which is environmental. So the first sub indicator in the environmental dimension is prevalence of soil degradation. Just to give you some context FAO and the inter governmental technical panel on soils have identified 10 main threats to soil health. Soil erosion soil organic carbon losses, nutrient imbalances acidification contamination, water logging, compaction soil ceiling, salinization and loss of soil biodiversity. Now, after a careful review of the 10 threats to soil health. And after deliberation with both in house and external experts. It was evident that all except one, which is soil ceiling are potentially and primarily affected by inappropriate agriculture practices carried out by the holder or the farmer on the agriculture holding. So in the context of SDG 241, we have selected for man threats to soil health that are more or less in general universal globally. So the first one is soil erosion, while erosion as you may know refers to the varying way of the fields top soil by the natural physical forces of water and wind. These can be accelerated or reduced as a function of farming activities such as tillage. The second one is reduction in soil fertility. Fertility refers to the capacity of the soil to provide crops with essential nutrients without reduction in productivity over the years. Reduction in soil fertility implies a situation in which the capacity of the soil to provide crops with essential plant nutrients tends to reduce from one another to another. Water logging refers to a situation of water stagnation on the land surface or excessive volume of water on the land surface affecting production. And salinization salt accumulation on the on the land surface. So it could be any other. So this is, this is what I was explaining in the, in the previous session that here countries can contextualize the two for one methodology according to the reality on the ground, or according to their needs. Apart from these four threats to soil health. If the country sees, or if the country experienced any other threats to soil health, then they may want to include that and skip one listed here. So within the context of two for one, like, you know, the previous sub indicator. A simple question is asked in the farm survey to capture farmers knowledge or declaration about the situation of the agriculture holding in terms of soil degradation. Now having said that. And many of you may wonder all soil under the agriculture land area in a country should be subject of periodic monitoring in order to assess the impact of agriculture on soils. Okay. So this, these monitoring tools includes maps models results from soil sampling or laboratory analysis ad hoc field surveys and other existing reports on soil and land degradation at the national or sub national level. So here, why we are proposing a question in agriculture survey which is a more subjective measure of soil health, rather than a more objective measure which could be soil sampling is because that many countries, while we were talking to you with them in the earlier stages reported and highlighted that these data sources are usually very costly. But, and hence we said that we are going to ask a simple question based on farmer declaration rather than using a more objective measure of assessing soil health. So it's more objective measures in terms of laboratory analysis. If it exists, then it may either be used to complement the information collected through the farm survey, or can also be used to cross check the farmer responses which are given for a certain territory. So we are planning out the possibility of using other data sources for checking soil health. If those exist that can provide additional contextual information. As well as it can also be used to triangulate and validate and cross check the farm survey results. So in terms of thresholds how the threshold for this particular some indicators are designed. Very simple. So the farms and its agriculture area are classified as green. If the combined area of the agriculture holding affected by any of the four selected threats to soil health is less than 10% of the total agriculture area of the farm. And if these four threats exist, or if any of these four threats exist. And if it is affecting less than 10% of the holding area, then the agriculture holding will be classified as green in percent of the total agriculture area of the farm. And then the holding will be classified as red. Here are the results of again Bangladesh pilot tests. As you can see, holding number one, we asked them a straightforward question as to how did you experience these four threats on your farm. So either said either yes or no. Okay. So soil erosion. No reduction in soil fertility. Yes, water logging. Yes, salarization. No, this holding didn't react to the to the fourth option which is other specify. If the holding is experiencing any other problem on its soil, apart from these four listed here, then the country may want to replace one of these with the one which is prevalent, you know, or which is relevant for for for their country. The total agriculture land area of the holding is 0.9 hectares. The total agriculture area affected by by the threat by these two threats is 0.40, which amounts to 45%. Now if you recall from the previous slide, if the combined area affected is between 10 to 45% of the of the holding area, then we will classify it as acceptable or yellow. Okay, so hence this was classified as acceptable. Holding number three. They answered no to all these question, the total area of the holding was 0.2 hectare 0% of the area is affected. Hence, this holding was classified as desirable. And holding number four, as you can see here, they have two issues on on their holding soil. The total holding size is 0.27. The total area factors is 0.20 and hence this holding is classified as non sustainable. And the last step again is the same. We aggregate the areas classified as greens, yellows and reds. We divide that by the nationally representative agricultural land area collected through the sample agriculture survey to derive this proportion of agriculture land area, which are which has issues with with soil health. Now let me let me just quickly show you the excel sheet because the working for this is very straightforward. It's not complicated at all. All we need to ask is a is a question. And the rest is taken care of. So as you can see here, here is a question that we ask in the survey module. Have you experienced any of the following soil degradation threats on your holding. Erosion reduction in soil fertility, water logging, salinization, and other specify, okay, or none of the above. So using this question, once they, you know, once they have highlighted, I have issues with these two threats on my holding. And the follow up question. What is the total area of the holding affected by any of the threats identified above. So total area affected. And, you know, the farmer will give us a rough approximation as to how much area is affected by, by that particular issue or by that particular threat. So using this set of information and information that we have already collected about the total area of the of the holding. We will. So this is the information about the total area of the holding. If you remember, we use the CIA FF or WCA 2020 classification of agricultural land area. And based on based on this, these two questions. We then so analyze information soil erosion know reduction soil fertility yes water logging yes salinization no other no total area of the holding is nine. So in total area affected, affected as five simple formula you divide five by nine to arrive at the percentage. So, okay. And so on I mean we start classifying the, the areas highlighted as green yellows and reds. So in this case holding one because greater than 50% of its area is affected by these two threats. That is non sustainable. 0% desirable less than 10% is also desirable between 10 and 50% is acceptable, and so on. And then we start adding up the area classified as green yellows and reds. And we estimate the estimate the person. So I stop here. No question and no hand raised. Let's wait for one minute if there is someone is thinking about a question. Okay, we have a right hand. Mr. Hasano to you. The question is, the young people, it's on how to say the young people, agricultural or the young people, cultivable. The question composes the, is that, is that the young people, agricultural or the young people, cultivable. I don't know, I don't know, it's not very clear to my head, I wanted to know, is it on cultivable young people, or is it on young people. It's true that it's, we're talking about the soil, the degradation of the soil, is it in this degradation, is it, we're talking about the young people cultivable or the young people. As I explained earlier, 241 is estimated and assessed at the agriculture holding level. So we are always talking about farmland. Everything which is beyond farm is not part of the scope of SDG 241. Think of, you know, all the issues that comprises, or that SDG 241 entails that we are discussing in turn, all of these are assessed at the agriculture holding level or farm level so we are always talking about the farmland. Okay, we have another question from Mr. Nick, we in the Thanga, you have the floor please, Mr. Nick, we in the Thanga. You can unmute yourself and speak if you want. Okay, let me ask you a question from Mr. Duvin in the meantime, what is the reason for replacing a prevalent treat of a country on the list instead of selecting others. Sorry, come again. What is the reason for replacing a prevalent treat of a country on the list instead of selecting others. No, I am trying to try to understand the question. Look, I mean, we have listed four. Okay. And then we have an option given for the fifth one. Okay, other specify. So let's say for example, if these four are not relevant for your country. You just, you know, you are not even, you should not bother yourself to ask information about these four because many countries know, right, a priori that as to what the threats are to their soil health. The salinization or water logging is not an issue in a certain country, they shouldn't be adding these option to their agriculture survey in first place. If there is any other issue, which is threatening the health of the soil at the farm level, then they should be adding, you know, that particular issue to the list. As a replacement for the one which are listed here. This is when I was explaining that, you know, as you do for one allows country the flexibility to tailor or contextualize the methodology according to what's happening on the ground. So if I understood the question appropriately, we don't force countries to ask this question if you know the options given are irrelevant. Of course, if the options are relevant, then they should be collecting information on those on aside from those if there are other threats they may they may want to add those to the list. Yeah, we have another question that replied a little bit what you were saying so he's saying if we're reading the degradation based on the full criteria, what is the use of other in the questioner. So which which I which I just explained right exactly. So, so not necessarily these four criteria I mean if there is an other issue which is, which is the major issue for your country you may want to add that one. And then start assessing based on that. Sorry, I was speaking on mute. So there is Mr. Olaien with who would like to take the floor. Okay. First of all I would like to thank the presenter and the whole team. And especially from the morning to the morning the interpreters started to visit. And it really allowed me to achieve this training. So I have one more question that I don't know if I'm in a country like this or if I'm in a country that is surrounded by the sea. There are the islands in our country where the people are surrounded by sea water. Sometimes the sea water, the boats go to the fields, the cultures. How can we really use this concept in relation to that. Yes, so as mentioned, you know, and one of the option. I mean if it is water logging, if it is a water logging kind of a situation. There is one additional explanation given including by flood so this water logging can be can be, you know, certain characteristic of the soil because of the agro ecological conditions there. Or it could also be triggered by by floods right in a certain season. So in this case I mean it will be considered under the water logging option. Of course, further specification would be required that this is due to raising level of the sea in a certain time period. Okay, Mr. Ambrose. Maybe now you have fixed your problem with the microphone you won't like to take the floor. Mr. Nick Wimbatanga. Maybe there is a mistake with the right hand. So I leave the floor to Mr. Begarec. Yes. Okay. You have the floor. Yes. So yes, for all these issues that are highlighted as part of this particular sub indicator, we are relying on farmer declaration and his knowledge and his experience with the soil quality of his agricultural holding or her agricultural holding. Now, in terms of us using more objective methods for collecting information about about soil health may that may be salinization or soil fertility, etc. For that, obviously, we need to carry out soil sampling, but that is not the approach that SCU 241 is recommending. Okay, because as I mentioned earlier, collecting that sort of information is is very costly. And hence, and hence, we, we would like to, you know, use the information based on farmer declaration, rather than using a more sophisticated option. And we think that farmer is very knowledgeable about each plot and parcel of his agriculture holding, and he knows exactly as to what the problems are, at least the major problems are with the soil of his farm land. Given that assumption, you know, we collect this information from the farmer, but obviously, once this question is asked, you know, the numerator has to explain as to what do we mean by soil erosion, what do we mean by salinization, what do we mean by, by watering. So, a brief explanation is given to the respondent before once the question is asked, so that we get, you know, an appropriate reply from the, from the farmer or the farmer. Thank you, we have another question, it's in French. So the statistical unit for us is agriculture holding. Okay, so we collect information about the agriculture holding and by by virtue of that, we asked this question to the holder of the agriculture holding So whomever is owning the area or is operating that particular agriculture holding, the household of that person or the head of the household of that person will be asked this question. Now, there could very well be instances, whereby the respondent could be the owner of that particular holding, or he could be the co owner of that particular holding, or he could also be a manager of that particular holding. So all these questions will be asked not to all the rural households, but to the household who have, you know, involved in agriculture production activities. So from this perspective, you know, for us the statistical units are the households of the agriculture holding rather than the instead of the entire rural population living on living in agriculture areas. So I think that Mr. Ambrose would like to compliment some question about an answer about this question. So Mr. Ambrose, do you have the floor. It's the same question that has to do with the statistical limit. There are certain countries that have not yet taken the management of the agriculture of the rural areas. And how many times do the basic standards that we use are the head of the management that we have the identity to handle the management of the population. So can it be for these countries that have not yet had a base list of exploitation? So yes, I mean, if you don't have an agriculture census recently conducted, then it would be, it would be, you know, a bit of a problem, it would be a challenge. So for any agriculture survey, forget about SCG 241 for any agriculture survey that you may want to conduct. You know, basically an updated information about, you know, on the list frame or the area of frame is required for you to select your sample size. So that is would be would be a challenge for many countries who don't have an updated list or area of frame for their agriculture areas. So this is something which the country needs to think about, not only for SCG 241 but for any agriculture survey. Okay, we have another question. It's in French. Seth Montedezo, et elle mesurable? Sorry, come again. So is this rising of the water level measurable? Well, you know that that's what I just explained so so you know the farmer, at least he would know or she would know right as to as to whether his or her field are submerged in water in that particular time period because we are asking all these questions to the farmers who are selected as part of the sample. So he or she would know as to whether the water has risen to a level whereby you know it's not conducive for the growth of the crops that they have cultivated. So, specifically as to whether you know is water rise measurable. I may not have a definite technical answer because that's not my core skill set maybe some other unit, some other colleagues within FAO would be better place to give you that answer as to as to how it's measurable and what are the means and ways through to which it can be measured. But we are specifically, you know, interested in information at the agriculture holding level and we're asking these questions to the farm and he and she would know right as to whether his crops or fields were submerged which threatened their production and in a given season or in a given year. How much water rose and what level is is inimical or dangerous for for the production is is is in a way we don't need that much precise information all we need is as to whether there was an increase in water level and whether that threatened the production of the farmer in any way. Okay, great. Thank you. We don't have any other questions so I imagine we can move forward with the fifth sub indicator. Okay, so the second sub indicator in the environmental dimension is variation in water availability. Agriculture, more specifically, a irrigated agriculture is by far the main economic sector using fresh water resources. In many places water withdrawal from the rivers and groundwater aquifers is beyond what can be considered environmentally sustainable sustainable agriculture therefore requires that the level of use of fresh water for irrigation remains within the acceptable acceptable boundaries. While there is no internationally agreed standard of water use sustainability signals associated with unsustainable use of water, typically include progressive reduction in the level of groundwater drying out of springs and rivers and increased conflicts amongst water users. This sub indicator captures the extent to which agriculture contributes to unsustainable patterns of water use. Now, irrigation used on the holding means that water, other than rain is applied to crops, at least once during the entire reference period, that is the last three calendar years to elaborate further. Water can be sourced using different methods, apart you know using well irrigation, which is the method of irrigation where underground water is tapped through a well, it could either be a tube well or an open well. Second, water supplied directly by diverting it from the river through canals using gravity or pumping it from the river lag or underground water. And third, water can be applied on the field through sprinklers or micro irrigation that is also called drip irrigation. Now on top of this water allocation. In many countries, water location to farms is implemented by organizations mandated to ensure the delivery of users according to establishes. These organizations are usually called water users organizations water boards, water districts, etc. These these organizations institutions can be public owned by the farmers or or private operators. So how the thresholds for this particular sub indicators sub indicator of frame. The holding is classified as green. The availability remains stable or the ears for the farms irrigating crops on more than 10% of its agriculture land area. Okay. The farm will be automatically classified as green, if it is irrigating less than 10% of its agriculture land area. The agriculture holdings will be classified as yellow or acceptable. This is using water to irrigate at least 10% of its agriculture area. Does not know as to whether the water availability remain stable over the years, or experience reduction on water availability over the years, but there are no organization that effectively allocate water amongst the users. The holding will be classified as red in all other cases by all other cases, I mean to say the holding is using water to irrigate greater than 10% of its agriculture land area. It experience reduction in water availability over time. And there are no organizations that efficiently and equitably allocate water amongst the different users in that particular area. Now this is the result from from Bangladesh. Again, we asked farmer two or three questions. The first question is, are you using water for irrigation, the farmer could either say yes or no. If the answer is yes, we go to the follow up question. Have you experienced reduction in water over time. The farmer may say, yes. Have you experienced reduction, or he can say no water is always available in sufficient quantity. Okay. And based on the answer to these questions then we start, you know, classifying the holding is ready to learn. So, and let's focus on the first holding. And last whether you use water for irrigation, yes, no, yes. How much area are you using water to irrigate. Okay, 89.7% of this particular holding area is irrigated. But water is always available in sufficient quantity. So the water availability and access to water is not an issue at all in that particular area. And hence, we classify this holding as a screen. Holding number two. Are you experiencing reduction water availability. Yes, water level in my wealth is progressively going down over time. Okay, then the follow up question is, are there organizations that help you allocate the water effectively, and the farmer says, yes, they are organization and they're working well. We classify this holding as acceptable. The third case water level in my wealth is progressively going down. No, there are no organization that effectively allocate water. He's irrigating 74% of his agriculture land area of that particular farm and hence this holding is classified as unsustainable. And the last table is the same like for, for other sub indicators we aggregate or add up the areas classified as greens, yellows and reds. And we divide by the national representative area for us to estimate the proportion under green yellow and red. So let me go to the Excel sheet now. Question, did this holding use water to irrigate crops. Okay. So the responses or the options given are yes. If yes then indicate the percentage, or, or area of the holding that was irrigated area was given as six unit of my just walk by tears. Second, no I don't need irrigation know I cannot afford irrigation. No there is no water available. Okay, these are no has several other responses. So if the answer is yes. Then we go to another question. Are you observing reduction and reduction water availability from well or other sources that is like canal or river. The responses is no water is always available in sufficient quantity when I need it. The second option is yes water level in my well is progressively going down. The third option is yes water in the river lake or canal is getting scarce and I can't have reliable supply when I need it. And the fourth option is I don't know. Then, are there organization dealing so the follow up question would be, are there organization dealing with water allocation in the area where the holding is located. Yes, and they are working well. Yes, but they are not working well. No, there are none. I don't know. Okay. And of course the other information that we need is the total area of the holding which is, which is, which is us only once so let's go to the workings. Yes, water is used for irrigation. No water is always available in sufficient quantity. Okay. Total area irrigated is six. Agriculture area of the holding and hectare is nine percentage of total area irrigated 66.6%. This holding is irrigating 66% of its total farm area. It still is classified as desirable because as per condition water, you know, the first one is water availability remains stable over the years for the farms, irrigating crops on more than 10% of the second culture area. The second one. Yes, I use water to irrigate crops, reduction in water availability I don't know. It's a default result for farm irrigating less than 10% of the agriculture area, and hence we classify this farm as green as well. Non-sustainable. Are you using water to irrigate crops? Yes. The second question. Water level in my wilds is progressively going down. Yes. Are there organization norm? This farm is irrigating using water to irrigate 40% of its area, but the water level is going down. There are no organization to allocate water. And hence we will classify this holding as non-sustainable and so on. And we use the same logic for all these agriculture holdings. And lastly, as I mentioned, we then add up the areas classified as greens, yellows and reds based on this condition and then estimate the percentages or proportions. So do you have any question? We have Mr. Mutebuti would like to take the floor. Thank you. Han, would you please bring back the last Excel sheet on the screen. Yeah, the last sustainability status. Yeah, up the previous table, the previous one. Yes, this one. I did not get well. Which factor here, based on threshold definition, which column in this table helps us to define the last sustainability status of each holding. Okay, so there is a combination of information given in this table based on which you will be classifying the farm as green or yellow. Okay, so it's not one piece of information. It's a combination of different information from this table. So in this table, you know, like say for example, we'll start from column number one. Okay, we first need to establish the fact as to whether water is used for irrigation or not. If the holding is not using any water for irrigation or less than 10% of water for irrigation, we don't need, we don't have to go to the other conditions. Okay. So the question is, I use water on less than 10% area for irrigation. Then we by fault classified that holding is as green. So, so let's say for example holding to use water for irrigation. We don't even have to go to these conditions. Okay, so, you know, you can simply ignore these responses to this question, because it's using water on less than 10% of its agriculture area, and hence we will classify it as desirable. The other information comes into the picture, once the holding is using water on more than 10% of its agriculture area, which is, which is in this case, right, the holding one. So in this case, we will then ask the question as to whether you are experiencing any reduction in water availability. If he says no water is always available in sufficient quantity, then we don't have to go to the next condition, which is, when we ask about the organization for water allocation so we will stop here. So we will stop here and this, this information is sufficient for us to classify this holding as green. So let me go up. And as you can see here, water, I'm using water for irrigating crop, but water availability remains stable over the years for the farm irrigating crops on more than 10% of its agriculture area. So the moment we receive a reply from the farmer that is water availability stable, even if even if he's irrigating more than 10% of his agriculture area of the holding, we will classify him as green because the water availability is not a problem for him. The problem began becomes, you know, more alarming. Once we he is using water for irrigation on more than 10% of his agricultural land area. And the water availability is reducing. Once we receive a reply from him that yes I'm experiencing decrease in water availability which is which is holding number three. Then we need to ask him a follow up question as to whether there are organization which are efficiently or effectively allocating water amongst the different users right or the different agricultural producers. And based on that reply, if we say no there are none. Then we will classify him as is not sustainable. So it's a combination of staggered information, one on top of another, which is used to classify a holding as green yellow red. So, so it's not a single piece of information. For the holding number three. What happens if, if there is an organization that deals with water allocation. What could be what what can change if we replace this response from the farmer by having an organization. I can't hear you. Hello, think you left. So maybe he had some connectivity issues. Let's wait a bit that he comes back. Let's wait another minute then if he is not able to join we can go through the next presentation that I will be presenting so let's wait another minute. Okay, he sent me a message saying that he figured it out how to connect again. So still a few seconds and then we decide if we wait for him or if we move to the next presentation. Okay, he said he will, he will, he will join again soon so that's what it's. Hello, Stefania. Okay, you're here. So, what was that any progress in my absence or I'm sorry for for for this light glitch. Yeah, no don't worry I gave them minutes of break so we can resume where we are. Okay, so let me quickly go back to the Excel sheet which we were discussing. Oh, okay. We were on on this table. Yes. So resume. So, my question was, are you hearing me. Yeah. Okay, so my question was then on the holding number three. Yeah, the first two conditions are made. They're using water for irrigation and they have level of water going down. And then I was asking, what if we replace on the third criteria that they are having organization dealing with the water allocation. So what would be the consequence on this sustainability status of this holding. In this case. So yes, so in this case, I mean, let me let me explain right. So in this particular case which is holding number three they are using water for irrigation. They're using water for irrigation and more than 10% of of its area right. So they have experience, you know reduction in water availability as well, as you can see from their answer right. Yeah, you know then the fourth question and the ultimate condition based on which we then assign red or yellow color, or we change from yellow to red is as to whether there are organizations. in the area that are efficiently locating water. So if he says yes there are organization and those are working well, then we will classify that holding as yellow. If he says, no these organization, you know, organizations, okay, for allocating water, then that will be the determining factor based on which we will classify this holding or turn this holding from yellow to red. Okay, so that becomes then the, the ultimate, ultimate, you know condition for reclassifying the holding from yellow to red. So this is, this is in a way incremental information that we, we asked the farmer, okay, first irrigation, how much area, then you know, are they experiencing reduction in water availability. Yes, no. If yes, then are their organization, which are effectively allocating water yes no if no then you know, we turn the holding as right because you know the water availability our time in the future in the in the future will will become a very major issue in that particular area, and the government has to do something about about this issue, either by putting in place, you know, organization that effectively allocates water so choice to avoid conflicts amongst the amongst the population. Secondly, not only conflict but to allocate water or ration water appropriation so that the, you know, it could be utilized efficiently. Secondly, it needs to do something about, you know, the, the decrease in water of underground water availability as well. Okay, if farmer is using that for irrigation. And now we have invited over another colleague of ours Mr Flavio Bolliger from the Agris survey program. We are presenting the not only Agris survey, but as well the 50 by 2030 initiative and is the two for one within the context of that particular project. So there will be a slight deviation from the methodological discussion that we are having now to more data collection, but that is the only slide slot available with Mr Flavio and I, I, I, I expect that you will. You will be willing and you to accommodate, you know, that presentation. Though there is a slight, you know, this organization in terms of the turn of that presentation in the series of the events. So let me quickly go to the, to the next slide. Okay. So the last indicator for today, and the six one in the framework of SDG two for one is management of, of fertilizers. In the context of two for one sustainable agriculture implies that the level of chemicals in the soil and the water bodies remains within acceptable thresholds. Now, this particular sub indicator is constructed using data collected through a set of question asked to the farmer about the practices. He is adhering to or applying or the management measures that he has put in place in order to, you know, a bit or curtail the negative impact of fertilizer on the soil and the water. Okay. So these are the set of measures that, you know, have been discussed with the, with the experts, both in house at FAO and outside FAO. And in depending on the extent to which these measures are adopted by the farmer or the holder sustainability statuses are assigned to the agriculture holding. You can go through each management measure individually because, as I mentioned earlier, all these measure have been thoroughly explained in the numerator manual. So this provided you with the link. And at that link you can, you can access each sub indicator, and you can look through all these management measure separately to understand as to what do we mean by that. So let me just quickly go to the thresholds that we have selected for for for this particular sub indicator. The agriculture holding or the farm uses fertilizer, but take at least four specific measures to mitigate the environmental risks associated with the use of fertilizer, then the holding will be classified as is green. If the holding is not using any fertilizer whatsoever, then it will be automatically classified as green, given the fact that here we are assessing the negative impact of the fertilizer on the environment. Okay. So the holding is not using fertilizer from environmental perspective. The holding will be classified as green. If it is using fertilizer, and it is taking four measures out of these eight, then the holding will be assigned greens. The holding will be assigned yellow status if it uses fertilizer and take at least two of these eight measures. And the holding will be assigned red status if it uses fertilizer and does not take any measure from the eight which are recommended by FAO for the use of fertilizer. Okay. So based on the Bangladesh pilot tests that we carried out back in 2018 and 19 that I'm always referring to. We asked first a question as to whether the farmer is using fertilizer and he can answer either yes or no. If the answer is yes. Then we go to the follow up question and we asked him about these eight measures, while explaining each measure briefly to the respondent so that he knows as to what we're talking about. So, as you can see here out of the eight measures holding number one is only practicing to okay. And hence, you know, we assign this holding and acceptable status, okay, or yellow status holding to is using fertilizer, we go to the follow up question we asked them as to which measures have they adopted. They are practicing none, and hence this holding is classified as non sustainable. Let's go to holding number 37 user fertilizer no. So we don't even have to go to the follow up question. This holding is desirable from the perspective that it's not contributing negatively in terms of its usage of fertilizer, and thereafter it's impact on the environment holding, you know, Yeah, so holding 39. Yes, they're using fertilizer, and they have adopted four specific measures from the eight listed on the previous slide and hence this holding is assigned desirable or green status. And the last step is the same. So once the holding and their agricultural land areas are assigned green yellow and red statuses, we aggregate those, we add up those we divided by the national representative agricultural land area. And then we basically estimate the proportions or the percentages. So let me go to the excel sheet very quickly. So the first question is, did this agriculture holding use any synthetic or mineral fertilizer or animal manure or slurry for crops. The answer could, you know, it's a yes no question. The holding says yes, we go to the follow up question. Did this holding take specific measure to mitigate environmental risk associated with the synthetic and mineral fertilizers. The answer is yes we go to the follow up question. And then we ask about the eight measures that I just showed you on the slide. Okay. So the first one is follow protocols as per extension or retail outlet directions or local regulation not exceeding recommended doses. You know, measure three use legumes or as cover crops or a component of a multiple crop or pasture system to reduce fertilizer input, etc, etc. Okay. So if you want adherence to our adoption of these management measures. You know, we then start assigning the holding colors. So let me just show you here, use of fertilizer. Yes. Of the eight measure this holding has adopted three. Okay. From the condition, you can see here the farm uses fertilizer but take at least four specific measure to mitigate environmental risk. So it doesn't qualify that green, you know, criteria. The farm uses fertilizer and take at least two measures to mitigate risk. It qualifies that particular criteria, and hence we will be assigning this holding yellow or acceptable status. Okay. And so on based on this logic, we then assign other agriculture holdings, depending on as to whether they are using fertilizer or not. And then if they're using fertilizer, the extent to which they're adhering to the different management measures we assign them green yellow and red colors. And the last table is the same which I just explained as part of the presentation. So if you have any questions we have four minutes before Flavio, you know, start presenting his presentation. If you have any questions. Okay, Flavio is online. So, if we don't have any question maybe we can go directly to him. Yes, let's just do that I mean we just directly go to Flavio and after his presentation, we call it a day. And then we resume tomorrow with the rest of the indicators. Yes. So, maybe we can stop sharing the sundial. Flavio. So, welcome, let me introduce you to the others. So Flavio is a colleague of us in the statistics division. So he will be presenting the SBD2 for one in the context of the agri-sovereign program and the 50 by 20 initiative. Flavio has a degree in agronomy and another one in economy, and he was the coordinator of the agriculture of the Brazilian Institute of Geographic and Statistics from 2003 to 2015. And at FAO he contributed to the implementation of the global strategy to improve agriculture and rural statistics as a research coordinator. And since 2018 he acts as technical coordinator in the survey team in the statistics division of FAO. So I leave the floor to him for the presentation. Flavio, over to you. Thank you very much. Good morning everyone. I want to know, should I share my screen? Yes, please. Yes, I will see my presentation. Good, good, good, good. Okay. Well, today, the invitation from our bathroom, the final is to talk about the program that we're running to assist countries and how 241 indicator is addressed in these programs. The presentation goes first to the agris survey program. Talk about the project running by the agris survey program, the agris methodology, and how 21 is integrated in agris, and then about 50 by 30 initiative. The objectives, the process on country onboarding and how the tools of 50 by 30 incorporates the two foreign requirements. Well, the agris survey program was a result from initiative that can be for that is the global strategy. So, in fact, we have this. In 2008 with the crisis of crisis and different evaluation of the situation of statistics around the world have this notion that the offer in terms of quantity and quality of a week. We have these initiatives of the global status to develop to improve the production of goods that is around the world, especially on the developing country. And you, one of this results of the effort. The last development of the agris survey is agricultural integrate survey that aims to provide basic statistics. And also immersion data. New new data is like in terms of social economic aspects or events aspects. Today is also required. And the project. The program itself. aims to help countries on improving their ecosystem and promote this. This approach, the approach. The program is running two projects. One is website project. funded by the American cooperation program. We provide technical assistance and financial support to come by the Senegal Uganda, and a Gates project, funded by the individual Gates Foundation that provide just technical systems. And in this case, I will be on this project and mainly Costa Rica, Ecuador, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Nepal, Uruguay. The project starts in 2018 and finish this year. So we are finalizing these two projects. And they, they are somehow as a pilot for a bigger pro program project. That is the fifth by 30 initiatives. The last one was launched in 2019. But the onboarding of countries on the process is taking now, start this year, mainly over the end of last year. Countries that were assisted before. I consider pre-approved the countries. And in this moment, we are in the process to engage in the project, Cambodia, Georgia, Nigeria, Senegal, Uganda, Ethiopia. So this involved country, pre-approved countries involved countries. Supported by Agri survey and also SMS is a program. The survey team also provide more or less the same kind of support through the survey team. So this is a technical cooperation progress of FAO and UTIA problem also man with all the other ways to fund the activities. Well, the Agri integrated survey, I believe many of you already know, is a multi-purpose and modular and integrated survey. We are going to cover 10 years program cycle of 10 years is the proposal between the senses. And, and go beyond the traditional statistics or you go to statistics. So to avoid excessive burden, the other dimensions are spread across the year. So the core model. Mainly the basic agri-cuto diet that I need every year. And in the arts, we have four rotating models. Economy, labor, methods, environment, and machine-reoccupied assets. And in the screen have more or less the distribution, the proposed distribution in terms of frequency of this kind of data. So some is needed more frequently and all the less. And this is one proposed, but all of this schema could be customized. So, as I said, we have five models on Agri's. But the end of questionnaire, in fact, is a combination of model, could be only the core, but could be core plus economy or close or combining economies with labor and should be customized. Agri's, the handbook says that and the method is more or less like a menu of items and questions and it depends on the purity of the country, which kind of information is included in each year. So the idea is really to do a customization according to the purity of the country. But probably, at least all these dimensions. It's important to say that the Agri survey methodology was finalized in the end of 2017. In that time, the 241 Decatur was not defined completely. So the Agri's questionnaires available and all the handbook, do not include all requirements of 241. Some questions there because a basic question that 241 requires, like they add a production and all the aspects, but need additional questions and additional to cover all requirements of 241. So we did this work and we proposed two options and how to use the Agri survey tools to collect data for 241. Option one is add the question on the core model, all the additional requirements, we are talking about 32 additional questions. And the other option is to accommodate the need of the questions using the core and the economic and environmental model. In this case, according to the distribution of the data collection across the years, the data will be collected in two different years. So let me. So in the first option, we are talking about do all the data required for 241 in a single year that could be organized just in the core model and apply any year, but the best way to go is to combine this data collection with the methods and environmental model because many of the questions required for 241 is already included in this model. The second option is we, the idea is to collect socio-economic indicators in the year with the economic model and in the next year with the environment model, all the environmental indicators. So, in this case, the results of the indicators will have two different years of reference, not the same year, so two solutions that can be implemented considering the Agri system. The 5.20-13 initiative has more or less the same goals in terms of improving the capacity of the country to produce agricultural data for a better evidence-informed policy, but explicitly was constructed as a tool to produce the SDG indicator zero hunger, the goal of the SDGs, in particular 231, 222 and 241, the sub indicators that are linked to the agricultural survey as a tool and also the 5.21A and B about the gender. So, this is explicit, so have this intention to support the country on producing the indicators. We are in the process of country on border, as I said, the last February was the period for application. I know that many of countries that are represented in this meeting has applied. Nowadays, this year's idea is to incorporate six pre-approved countries, Uganda, Cambodia, Senegal, Nigeria, Ethiopia and Georgia, plus two new countries. And in 2022 Burkina Faso, Malawi, Ghana, Tanzania, and Nepal as a pre-approved country, plus other five countries and so on. So, the project has the aim to support 50 countries up to 2013. In general, the support goes through from six to eight years of technical assistance and financial support. There is a link here for the program, more details can be assessed later. It's very similar, the approach on FIPA3 to have two approach, two programs, one named Agricultural Survey Program, very similar to Agris. But the economy and labor model was combined in a single model named income, labor and productivity. And then we have the other two models, production methods and environment and machinery assets. And again, the core model goes every year to get the basic data and periodically we have other rotating models. The second program includes an additional model named income and life standard measurement that collect data on the household, so mainly on the farm household aspects in the household sector. It's important to say that the FIPA3 also has attention to a good coverage or complete coverage over good activities, so including non-household farms and household farms, commercial farms, etc. And in this case of the Integrated Croton Rural Survey Program, also known farm households to provide data in terms of the rural areas about the life conditions in the rural areas. So the instruments developed are named core ag, similar to the core on Agris, like a colter, the income, labor and productivity questionnaire, the non-farm income and life standard household questionnaire, machinery keeping assets questionnaire, and production methods and environment questionnaire. In the case of FIPA3, this basic agricultural questionnaire already includes the core questions. So when we're talking about ILP-AT, we're talking about all core data plus economic data and labor data. In AIG, we are talking about the core and machinery keeping assets and so on. So in fact, if you go to the website and download the design questionnaire, the core different ag, you don't need to adapt one model with other, but it's already integrated the core data with the different questionnaire for different years. In FIPA3, we have also other variations, so it's possible to collect data in one visit, so it's a one year data collection, referring to the previous agricultural year or Canada year, or two or more visits approach, where different visits could address the major or the minor seasons, or post-planting or post-harvest data. In this case, the data are split in different questionnaires, integrated, but different instruments for different visits, and all these are developed in service solution, the software developed by World Bank for data collection. Similar with AIG, the solution already integrated in the FIPA3 tools, the requirements of 2.1 was completely fully integrated, incorporated already, because we have the old methodology was defined when we developed these instruments, so you don't need to add additional questions to the previous instruments, but they are, and again we have this proposal to distribute the burden in two years. So this is the solution implemented, even is possible also to take a decision to go to the other solution on the single year for all sub-educators. So to show a bit how it was done, in fact, in the case of the FIPA3, we took this standalone questionnaire that I believe are back already with you, the standalone questionnaire of 2.1. And all the different requirements, different questions was adapted to FIPA3. So in the FIPA3 methodology, the data called, have the unit, different unit of observation, not only holding, but also the parcel of the plot. So some questions were distributed on the parcel, the example here, length tender is referred to the parcel, not to the holding, so later need to be aggregated. So this is a different way to get the same information, the same for the agrutor area. So we got the data by parcel and should be aggregated to come up with the data information for the holding as a whole. It's like this for all items, even all the aspects in terms of environment aspects. In the case of FIPA3, the question is in the level, some case in the level of holding, some case in the level of parcel. So, and all this was adopted in the instruments. We are about to publish, to finalize this in the peer review process. Adopment is a working paper from the power statistics division. The main stream is the indicator for in Agnes and FIPA3 where we cover all methodological aspects. The decision taken, the approach described the indicator itself and the needs and how it was incorporated and have as an annexes. The standalone questionnaire of 241 but also the aversion of the Agnes model, modified it to incorporate the requirements of 241 and the highlighting the 241 questions and the FIPA3 questionnaire. So this document should be available in two or three months. That's it. I think Flavio, we have finished with your presentation. Thank you very much. You are very kind even with this last minute to change our timing. No problem. You can stop sharing and really thank you very much again. Okay, bye bye. Bye bye. Okay, so, as I said, it's the 30 and with the standard you already said that the beginning we are going to close the day today. So this is the 30 sharp Italian time. For sure will be maybe very late for you or still you have a part of the day. So I thank you once again for the second day we have recuperated a bit the program of yesterday we have seen others have been together. We have reached the number of six of indicators today in total and tomorrow for sure we will finish with the sub indicator and have less crossing as we have time to also cover some other presentation and for sure tomorrow we will have a big discussion also with you to see and to understand the reality in your country and the concern you have on the calculation and the reporting of the STG 241. Thank you very much again and you tomorrow we start as today at 11 Italian time sharp. Okay. Bye bye to everyone.