 Okay, so good morning, good afternoon and good evening everyone and nice to see you again for the second day of virtual training on the SDG 241. I hope you have had a nice end of the day yesterday, yesterday, and that you have told a bit about all the discussion we have had yesterday. So before starting, I would like to recap quickly what we have seen yesterday. So we have introduced the SDG indicators 241, and as Vanjana explained as part of the economic dimension and the methodology so to calculate the first two subindicators. It has been a very intense day, full of concepts and many doubts have been clarified through the question and answer session. So today we will continue the presentation and explanation of the remaining subindicators. So we will not be able to finish all of them, but no problem we will continue tomorrow. And today the last session, we will see the Gagri and the 50 by 2030 initiative. And this session will be presented by a colleague of our division. This is 504 here in Italy at least. So I think it's better to start immediately, because today also will be very intense day as we just seen. So I will draw to us on there for starting this session. Thank you. Thank you everyone and good morning to all of you. Good afternoon and good evening. So we will start from where we left yesterday. So let me just share my screen with you first. Okay, so yesterday we covered the indicator framework in general in general and then we covered two subindicators in the economic dimension of the three in total. We covered from output value per hectare and secondly, the net farm income subindicators. Today we are going to cover the third and the last subindicators, so indicator in the economic dimension. Resilience, the coverage is all farm types that are considered within the context of SG 241. And the reference period is last calendar year. Well, resilience as a concept has emerged as a key factor that needs to be assessed in sustainability resilience encompass absorptive anticipatory and adoptive capacities. And refers to the properties of the system that allows agriculture holdings to deal with external shocks and stresses. This is to persist and to continue to be well functioning and other benefits and to provide other benefits to its members. So, in the context of SG 241. The following external shocks are considered remember I'm stressing the word external shocks. So, within the framework of of SDG 241 when we talk of resilience. We see as to whether the agriculture holdings can absorb subsist and recover from external shocks. Okay. So the first external shock of the many that is considered is drought. So long period of abnormally low rain that leads to obviously shortages of water. The second shock considered is flood, which is an overflow of large amount of water beyond it's what normal limits, especially what what is called normal dry land. The other one is past attack attack, which is, you know, typically a destructive insect or other animal that attack crops food or livestock. This can include heat waves as well. And for the market shops, any demand or supply shock that altered the price matching mechanism in the market. For example, price reduction for commodities produced by the culture holding or increases in prices of inputs etc etc. So, as a shock coping mechanism or mitigation strategy, so that agriculture holdings continue to be sustainable the SG 241 proposed that the holding should have the following risk mitigation mechanism. Access to or availed insurance. While insurance is a protection measure to to to or preventive measure to protect the agriculture holding against external shocks. The second mitigation mechanism considered is access to or avail credit both obtained from both from formal and formal sources, such as banks, relatives or local money lenders. And thirdly, the fact if the agriculture holding is diversified. Which is defined as a share of a single agriculture commodity or activity produced on the holding is not greater than 66% in the total value of production of the holding. So this definition is taken from international standard. This is the classification division for so access to credit and or insurance is in turn defined as to whether a given services available. And the holder of the agriculture holding has sufficient means to to access the service or obtain the service. You know, we mean that the required documents collateral and positive credit histories, which which which is in a way a necessary condition for you to access the services exist. Okay. Now, as I mentioned earlier. To the one of the above three factors will allow the agricultural holding to prevent resist and adopt as well recovered from external shocks, which I just explained floods, droughts market failure pop price shock climate shock animal and pest attack etc. Now, in terms of on farm diversification let us discuss that a bit more. The value of production of one single agriculture commodity as I explained earlier our total value of production of the agriculture holding. And we see as to whether the value of this formula is above or below 66% if it is above 66% this means that the farm is not diversified. If it is below 66% we say that the farm is more or less diversified. Okay. So the formula is very simple on farm diversification value of production of, you know, a single commodity, divided by total value of production. So, I hear means ith agriculture holding and see is, you know, the commodity produced by by the by that particular that's holding. Now, the information for this formula, again, we need not to collect any new information, the information, or the data that that was collected within the context of farm output value per hectare. Those questions are sufficient to give us the information for this formula. Because we will have commodity wise information for crop, as well as livestock, from which we will, we will derive the total value of production and we will also have the value of production of that particular commodity. So, no new information or no new data needs to be needs to be collected. So, in a way, now that you see the, the questions for the, for these three sub indicators at least in the economic dimension, rely on the, on the same questions in the, in the agriculture survey. Now, in terms of sustainability criteria, the agriculture holding is considered resilient or classified as resilient. If it has availed in the past, or has means to access the following risk mitigation mechanisms. So, by the following risk mitigation, I mean to say access to our weld insurance access to our credit and on farm diversification keep in keep that in mind. So the holding has access to our weld, at least two of the three mitigation mechanisms, then it will be classified as green. So if it has access to at least one of the three mitigation mechanism, then it will be highly classified as yellow. And if it has no access to three mitigation mechanisms, then it will be obviously, classified as, as red. Now this is the data that we have collected within the context of the Bangladesh pilot tests that I was referring to yesterday. As you, as you can see, and we will cover this in detail in the Excel sheet, but we administer a set of questions. So the farmer as to whether he has access to our credit or whether he has access to our weld insurance. So one question is on that. And then the rest of the information on on from diversification as I just explained is coming from the same question, which are used to collect information for land productivity sub indicator. So this is the first bit of the information. So this information is coming from the, from the question that I showed you yesterday. This is the new question, access to a valid credit access to insurance etc. So as you can see here holding one agriculture holding one, the share of a single commodity in its output value is 76%. Producing two commodities of which the share of one commodity is 76%. The second commodity is 24%. Excuse me. So as per the criteria, which I just explained to you on the previous slide. So the first one, we see, we calculate and then see as to whether the share of a single commodity is greater than 66% if it is greater than 66% the farm is classified as non diversified. Okay. So 76% here means that this farm is non diversified it's relying heavily for its value of output on one single commodity. So hence it's very vulnerable to external shocks in turn in case of a certain kind of pass or take or market failure, or, or any other external event, because of the fact that this firm is the agriculture holding is producing only one type of prop is highly exposed or vulnerable to those shocks. On the on farm diversification criteria this farm or this agricultural holding doesn't score, you know, anything. Access to credit however this agriculture holding replied yes access to insurance, this holding said yes. Of the three mitigation mechanism on farm diversification credit and insurance this holding has access to two. And as I explained on the previous slide, if the holding has access to a rebel two out of three mitigation mechanism, it will be classified as a screen. So hence this holding is classified as green. Now the second agriculture holding holding three, as you can see here. It's, it's evenly dependent on the three commodities that it is producing. And hence, you know, the share of every single commodity is less than 66%. So it's classified this holding as is diversified. However, it doesn't have access to the two other mitigation mechanism. It has of the three it has only, you know, access to one and hence this holding is classified as yellow or acceptable and lastly holding for. As you can see here, all of the output is generated by one single commodity. In fact, this holding is monoculture. And it doesn't have access to other mitigation mechanisms, it scores zero. So the three, it has access to none, and hence we classify this holding as non sustainable or red. The last step, which I, which I've been explaining to you as part of the other sub indicators as well remains the same. So once we classify the agriculture holding as green yellow or red. We associate the same sustainability statuses to the agriculture land area of those particular holdings. We then add up the areas. We classify it as green, yellows and red and we divide by the nationally representative agriculture land area to calculate these proportions. So let me now go to the go to the Excel sheet. So fun I can you see that. Yes, yes sir Bob go ahead. Okay. I was explaining earlier as part of my slides. You know there are set of questions where no new information needs to get collected that information, at least for one of the mitigation mechanism which is on farm diversification is coming from the questions. The same questions that that that, you know basically generate information for the land productivity and profitability sub indicator. So as you can see here this question remain the same question number a to what was the total value of crops and it's by product produced by the holding so this information stays the same is the same question the same data, which I showed you earlier in both for productivity as well as profitability sub indicator. So we calculate information on the crops, its area along with the unit of measure the quantity produced the average or latest prices if these two doesn't exist in the value of production. Likewise, we collect information about the by products, its quantity produced average or latest price, or value of production what whichever exists on, you know, and then we collect information on that. And likewise, you know, similarly for for livestock and by products so I'm not going to go into this question because I already went through it in in fairly detailed way yesterday. So same same similar kind of information is collected, or exactly the same kind of information is collected let me correct myself. So, and then you know information on other on farm activities on farm secondary activities produced by the holding or practice by the holding. So that information stays the same. So we need not to have any additional question for the diversification part. Now as I was explaining earlier, we still have to ask information about two other risk copying mechanisms, okay, or risk mitigation mechanism, which is credit and insurance. So we asked a simple question in the survey module. Did this holding have access to or availed any of the following mechanism for protection against external shops. And the references last calendar year and then the option is this holding had access to or avail credit this holding had access to or avail insurance. And then lastly, neither the holding had access to nor availed any of the above mechanisms for protection against external shops. Okay. So, only this is an additional question, which needs to get asked, and then it gives us all the information that is required for us to build this, or construct this particular sub indicator. Now, the for the denominator obviously the question remain the same. So I'm not going to go through this, we collect information about the agriculture land area of the holding by land use classes. And then, you know, we confirm these land use classes, but this information needs not to get collected every time repeatedly within the context of the sub indicator. It's collected only once and we then we use that information for for all seven decades combined. Let me go through the steps. Okay, let me go through the formulas, and the requisite analysis that needs to be carried out for us to construct these sub indicators. So the first step is, again, you know it stays the same, like in the case of productivity and profitability indicator. So we want the information on average prices collected by commodities, as well as the quantities of those particular commodities. We, we, we then present this maybe in a table or something. Okay. So, once we have that, then we estimate the value of production for each particular commodity. And that is very simple, we just multiply the average or the latest, you know farm gate prices by the physical quantities or unit, estimated in a standard unit of measurement to estimate the value of production in local currency units. Okay. So once we do that. We add all the value of production for all the commodities for us to estimate the value of output for the entire holding. And as you can see here this number stay the same because you know we are using the same information. Now the third step is for us to remember for us to estimate the percentage contribution of each commodity to the value of production of the farm, based on which we will be assigning the farm diversification status right. So it's very simple. We, what we need to do is, you know, we just need to divide the respective contribution of each commodity value of production divided by the total value of production which is 1477. And then we see as to whether the share of this commodity is above is equal to or above or below 66%. So if it is above 66%, we consider that holding is non diversified. If it is below 66%, then we say that agriculture holding is diversified. Okay. And as you can see here, we divide the respective output value of output of each commodity by the total value of production. And for this particular agriculture holding, none of the commodity is exceeding 66%. So we just, you know, basically analyze this for the top three commodities. We can do it for all like the way we did in the above table. And then we see as to whether it's exceeding 66% and as you can see here, it's not. However, this holding doesn't have access to or availed credit, but has access to or availed insurance. So from diversification perspective, this holding is diversified, it doesn't have access to credit. It has access to or avail insurance and hence out of the three. This holding comply with to risk mitigation mechanisms or has adopted to risk mitigation mechanism. And hence, as per our traffic light approach, this holding is classified as desirable, because out of three, it has access to two mitigation mechanisms. And we do the same exercise then for all agriculture holdings that are part of the sample. Right. And and we see as to and classify the holdings accordingly. Okay. Let me pick holding number four here. As you can see here for holding number four the share of a single commodity is 100% so it's producing one single one single crop or maybe one single is raising one single livestock right. And from this perspective, this holding is extremely vulnerable to external shocks. Now, so, so this holding is monoculture, or maybe it's producing only one single commodity so it's highly risky. So diversification is known, access to a well credit no access to avail insurance no. So this holding is classified as right and so on. So we repeatedly do the same kind of analysis based on the information collected for all agriculture holdings, which are part of the sample of course, and then we assign sustainability services to the agricultural holdings, and then as a secondary step as a follow up step, we associate the same status is to the agricultural land area of those particular holdings. Okay. And then, by now, you may know, we add up the area greens, yellows and and and reds. And we divide by the national representative agricultural land area to estimate the proportions. Okay, so I stop here. So now we have completed the, the first dimension of SCG 241. Remember, we have three dimensions economic environmental and social within the economic dimension. We had three sub indicators, which we covered already from output value per hectare net farm income and risk mitigation mechanism. Now we have, you know, entered. Now we will cover the second dimension of SC 241, which is the environmental dimension. Remember, this particular dimension has five sub indicators, which we will cover in turn. So the very first one within the within this dimension is prevalence of soil degradation. And the second dimension is environmental health. The coverage is all from types, and the reference period for this particular sub indicator, again is last three calendar years. Now, just to give you some context. And the inter governmental technical panels on on soils have identified, in fact, 10 major threats to soil health. Okay, so there are 10 major threats that can negatively impact the soil health. So let me go through it. So the first one is soil erosion. Soil organic carbon losses, nutrient imbalances, acidification, contamination of the soil, water logging, compaction, soil sealing, salinization and loss of biodiversity. So the to properly assess the soil health. We have to look into these 10 different threats. Okay. And then based on that, we can then say as to whether the soil is healthy or the soil is unhealthy. Now, obviously, within the context of 241. We were training earlier, seeking additional information on anything means additional questions within the agriculture survey. And hence, we wanted to avoid that. So we were closely discussing this team, or this particular sub indicator with with experts. And then we tried to narrow it down narrow down the, the 10 threats to as minimum as possible. So after a series of discussion and consultation with with these thematic expert as well as statisticians. We narrow it down to four, so out of 10 we focused only on four threats. The reason why we can find ourselves these four is because these are more of universal in nature so these are applicable across the globe to all countries. However, while we were developing the methodology, we said that okay we will confine ourselves to four but then we gave flexibility to countries to report any other threats that they may think is relevant in their context. Okay. So, let me go through the threats. So the first one is soil erosion. So what do we mean by soil erosion. So soil erosion refers to the wearing away of the fields or the plot top soil by the natural physical forces of water and wind. These can be affected accelerated or reduced as a function of farming activities such as tillage. Okay, amongst others. Then the second one is reduction in soil fertility. Soil fertility refers to the capacity of the soil to provide crops with this essential nutrients without reduction in productivity over the years. Okay, reduction in soil fertility implies the situation in which the capacity of the soil to provide crops with essential plant nutrients that are needed for its growth tends to reduce from one ear to another. The second one is salinization, which is salt accumulation on the on the agriculture land surface and water logging refers to a situation of water stagnation on the on the land surface or excessive volume of water on the land surface affecting production. The fourth that we have shortlisted and recommend for countries to collect information on, but there will be many countries who will say that salinization of water logging or reduction in soil fertility, or maybe soil erosion right. So fertility may be relevant to everyone but soil erosion salinization water logging. One of this is not relevant to us in our context. And hence, we give this flexibility to countries whereby we say, okay, so if there is another threat on top of these four or if you want to replace one of these four with another one, which is prevalent in your country, then you can do so. Now within the context of 241. Let me clarify one, one additional point. As by now you may have seen, we are collecting information from the farmer based on his declaration about the economic performance of the holding which we covered in the economic dimension. And in the environmental dimension, we again are using this, which subjective measure, okay, which is, which is a farmer declaration. So, we are asking the farmer, his knowledge or experience or his practices pertaining to a given environmental related issue on his agriculture holding. And understand that it's not objectively measured. Okay, at FAO we considered both subjective as well as objective means of measuring the environmental impacts of of agriculture. So, as I was explaining a simple question is asked in the farm survey to capture farmers knowledge or declaration about the situation of agriculture holding in terms of soil degradation. So, in reality, in, you know, and are ideally all soils under agriculture land area in a country should be a subject of periodic monitoring in order to assess the impact of agriculture on soils. And when I say periodic monitoring. These typically includes maps maintained by my certain agencies within our institutions within countries for the agricultural land area models. The results from soil sampling and laboratory analysis so the best way so the best way for you to assess like say for example soil fertility is to go to the field, dig a hole at different places within the same plot. Take it to the lab and assess it as to what nutrients this particular soil is lacking. Now, initially, when we were developing, you know, the prevalence of soil degradation sub indicator. We resorted to those objective measures and we were we were recommending countries for them to implement soil testing, you know, facilities for them to be able to assess their soil scientifically and objectively. But soon, many of the countries with whom we share that version of the methodology in the past, especially developing ones, they reply to us and say and and and and raise this concern that conducting soil sampling within each agricultural holding. Right. So the cost would be prohibitive. It would, you know, we will not be able to provide you with with such a detailed and objective information, which is which is very costly to collect. Since then we revised the methodology for us to focus on the more subjective measure which I just explained is based on formal declaration. So, but always the recommendation from FAO is that even if you are collecting this information in agriculture survey, if more objective information exists somewhere else within the country. So this information should be complemented with the farm survey data. You know to to interpret or to cross check farmers responses or the agriculture holders responses. Now, in terms of how do we classify agriculture holdings, the criteria is very simple. We ask farmers, a couple of questions, first asking him as to whether he has experienced these four threats on his agriculture holding in the past three years. If we say yes, then we ask him a follow up question as to what was the combined area affected by any of the four selected threats to soil health. And based on that, then we assign him or his or her agriculture holding green yellow or red statuses. So if the combined area affected by any of the four selected threats to soil health. So it could either be salinization, soil erosion, water logging or reduction in soil fertility, if any or all combined leave effect less than 10% of the area of the of the agriculture holding then the holding will be classified as a screen. If the combined area affected by these four threats is between 10 to 50% of the total agriculture area of the farm then we classify it as yellow. And if the combined area affected is greater than 50% of the total agriculture holding area, then it will be classified as as red. So as I was explaining to you that we ask, you know, a set of questions to the farmer. At maximum I believe to. And based on that, we then analyze the data. So, holding one, we asked the question. Okay, do you have any of these four threats on, did you experience any of these four threats on your agriculture holding the response was no. Yes, yes to water logging, no to salinization, the total agriculture area, agricultural land area of this holding is point nine percent point nine hectares sorry. And it has already been collected and it's needed for each sub indicator as a denominator, so there is nothing new. The total area affected, we asked this directly to the farmer so what do you think how much area of your agriculture holding is affected by these four threats. Okay. And he said one four zero hectares. So we divide this by the total agricultural land area to estimate the percentage area affected based on which then we assign the green yellow or red strategies. Okay, so if you remember we said that if the area affected is between 10 to 50% it will be classified as yellow holding three experience none is total area is point to hit here. Zero percent is affected. Obviously the area factor is zero percent is classified as desirable, holding for experience to threats soil erosion and reduction in soil fertility. The total area is point to seven hectares. Total area factors point to zero hectares. In terms of percentage is 74% and hence this holding is classified as non sustainable, and so on. Okay, we repeat the same kind of step for all agriculture holdings and you know we assign sustainability status. And lastly, the steps remain the same we then add up the areas classified as a green, yellows and reds we divide by the national representative agricultural land area to estimate these proportions. So let me go to the Excel sheet now. Tom or Stephanie can you confirm if you can see. Yeah, yes. Perfect. So, as I was explaining the first question that we asked within the survey module is, have you experienced any of the following soil degradation threats on your holding. Okay. So this is the very first question the reference period is last three calendar years soil erosion reduction in soil fertility water logging salinization and other specify. If he says, or she says yes to any of the options. Then we ask her or him as to what is the total area of the holding affected by by the threats identified above. Okay, so the total area factor. And that's it. This is the only information that we seek. So we asked simply two questions. And based on these two questions we, we then start assigning sustainability statuses to the agriculture holding and the agricultural land area of the country. Rest of the information remain the same I mean, as you can see here this question is getting repeated from the previous sub indicators, but we just kept it there. So that everyone is just just to keep your memories refreshed that we still need information on the denominator of each particular seven indicator but this this information is just just needs to get collected once. And that's it. Now in terms of the, of the steps required to analyze the data. So we collect information based on the first question the farmer or the holder said no to soil erosion yes to reduction in soil fertility yes to water logging no to salinization no to others. Okay, so this is the first table. We then asked him about the total area affected. And it was told to us by the farmer that the total combined areas affected is five agricultural land area of the holding we already know is nine. We divided to calculate the share of agriculture area effect. And this is all the information that we need. So it's not showing up properly, but as I was mentioning the holding will be classified as green. If the combined area affected is less than 10% it will be highlighted as yellow if it is between 10 and 50% and it will be highlighted as or classified as red. If it is above 50%. So, let's pick any holding. Okay, let's pick holding number three. So yes to these two threats, no to water logging and salinization, no to others. Total agriculture area in hectares it's 20 hectares. Total area affected is 1.9 hectare. The percentage estimated to be if we divide this by the total agricultural area 9.50. And hence this holding is classified as desirable because the total area affected is less than 10%. And lastly, once we do that we the same step, we add up the area greens yellows and red. And we divide by the nationally representative agriculture land area collected using the same agriculture survey by the way to estimate these portions. Okay, I stop here. We have one question. So, instead of insurance and credit. Can we consider government aid during emergencies as substitute to crazy and insurance. Yeah, that's, that's a very good point. One credit insurance is something that government aid or government grant or government support in case of negative events is something which is, which is, which is not in your control right, which is which you cannot control I mean the government may or may not depending on as to whether it has sufficient resources available at that point in time support the farmer or not. So that's something which is, which, which is conditional on the on the government wishes and it's, it's, it's sweet will right on the flip side insurance and credit is something which the farmer has with the farmer has in his or her control. By that I mean to say if it has if he or she has sufficient. resources in terms of credit history in terms of trustworthiness in terms of collateral and in terms of other means to access these two services here he or she, him or herself can insulate his or her agriculture and engage these external events. The government support or is something which is, which is, I, I, you know, we are not sure about that right. It may or may not give support to the to the farmer so we cannot based on as to whether the government is supporting a given area or given agriculture holdings in a certain time period. At least, you know, as for the methodology of this particular sub indicator is concerned is not built into it. Another question from Japan. How do you determine the extent of any investigation, for example, in case of erosion to what degree is it determined that erosion is observed observed. Now, the implicit assumption obviously here is, of course, as I was mentioning earlier, when I started presenting the sub indicator, I said that we should be using more objective measurement tools for us to estimate. The extent of these threats to soil health. Okay, whether it's erosion whether it's soil fertility salarization or water logging. Now, because of the fact that we are resorting to more subjective way of us analyzing the impact of these negative threats. In fact, we are totally relying on on farmers declaration. Okay. And we believe, and, and some of you may agree that farmers by and large, in general, are very clever people. Usually, you know, these people are practicing agriculture. For if not centuries at least for for decades and years. Okay, so they exactly know as to what kind of problem they have on which part of their agricultural and area of their holding. So if you ask them, they will exactly tell you my. That plant plot or that field of my holding is not performing well because of XYZ reason. Now, whether he has in terms of output, he will know that you know this particular plot of mine is giving me less output because of, you know, salarization because of soil erosion because of my land is not fertile. Okay. So we, I agree here it's a more subjective, you know, measurement approach, but in any case, this is, this is what we, you know, devised in collaboration with with colleagues like yourself, especially, especially the colleagues from NSO, as well in agriculture. So, this is what we are offering. But if there are more objective. You know, approaches for data collection available. As I mentioned, those should be complemented with the farm survey results. So we are not completely ruling out that you only rely on farm survey results for you to make your analysis but if more objective, more reliable, more precise information from from a source that is considered as a gold standard for that particular for that particular aspect of phenomena, then you know that should be considered as well in combination with the farm survey results to have a better understanding of the situation, which is prevalent in that particular area or in that particular case. Another question from teaching Cambodia. How to select the households and to collect the data in the territory. For example, district level province level for a territory representation. So, this is something which is, obviously, it's explained in one of the document that we have produced is a support document for SCG 241, which we call the sampling guidelines or sampling guidance on SCG 241. So, from this perspective, the level of granularity or the level of detail that you want to build in for you to get disaggregated results by by different administrative levels is entirely up to the country. For us, as I mentioned earlier, for FAO or for international reporting, we only expect country to be reporting national level, national level numbers on national level estimates for SCG 241 and sub indicators. But, you know, you can go up to any extent. I mean, as I was mentioning earlier that indicator scale independent, and it can be produced and reproduced for for detailed administrative levels, you know, it could be generated as a promise level, it could be generated district even, you know, you can go below if you have a lower rung of administrative level in place in your country. So for us, we only need national figures for for your own policy making you may want to consider disaggregating results by by different geographies and different administrative levels. Hello, welcome back. We can resume now the sessions and we will continue with the environmental dimension. Welcome back. Okay, welcome back. So, we were discussing the first sub indicator in the environmental dimension, which was prevalence of soil degradation. Now the second sub indicator in the environmental dimension is variation in water availability. The theme is water use the coverage is all fun types, and the reference period for this particular sub indicator is also set at three calendar years. So, agriculture, as many of you may know, more specifically irrigated agriculture is by far the main economic sector using freshwater resources. In many places, water withdrawal from rivers and groundwater aquifers is beyond what can be considered environmentally sustainable. And agriculture therefore requires that the level of use of fresh water for irrigation remains within the 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 level of groundwater. So, water is used out of springs and rivers and increase conflicts amongst water users in case of water shortages. This sub indicator captures the extent to which agriculture contributes to unsustainable patterns of water use. And irrigation used on the holding means that water, other than rain, of course, is applied to crops, at least once during the entire reference period that is last three calendar years. So to elaborate further, water can be source using different methods, using well irrigation, which is a method of irrigation where underground water is tapped to a well, it could be a tube well or an open well. Secondly, water supplied directly by diverting it from rivers through canals that is gravity, or pumping it from river lack or groundwater. And third water can be applied on the field through sprinklers or micro irrigation or drip irrigation. In terms of water allocation, in many countries, water allocation to agriculture holdings is implemented by organizations mandated to ensure the delivery of water to different users according to established rules. These organizations are typically called water users organizations, water boards, water districts, etc., which can be public owned by the farmers, or it could also be a consortium of private operators. So how do we go about us determining as to whether the agriculture sector is green in terms of its water usage yellow or red. So, we will classify the agriculture holding is green, if the water availability remains stable over the years for agriculture holdings, irrigating crops on more than 10% of its agriculture area. Green will be a default results. If the agriculture holding is irrigating less than 10% of its agriculture area. Now, try to understand that for this particular sub indicator and the, and the two others that we are going to cover in turn, we are assessing the impact of agriculture on the environment. If the agriculture holding is not using water for irrigation, it's not contributing negatively to the water shortages problems in first place. So hence, you know, the second condition. If the holding is using water on less than 10% of its agriculture area, it will be classified as green. If the agriculture holding is irrigating more than 10% of its area than the water availability should remain stable, according to farmer declaration of course. The agriculture holding will be classified as yellow. The holding uses water to irrigate crop on at least 10% of the agriculture area of the farm. And it doesn't know whether the water availability remains stable over the years, or experience reduction in water availability over the years, but there is these water users organizations that effectively allocate water amongst the users. And red will be in all other cases, just to elaborate further, the holding uses water on more than 10% of its agriculture area, the water availability is going on the water availability is not stable, and the farmer is experiencing reduction in water availability over the years. And there is no organization that effectively allocate water, then in that case the holding will be classified as is that. Now, like for other indicators, we ask a couple of questions to the farmer. First, we ask them as to whether they're using water for irrigation. If the answer is yes, we move to the next question. We ask him as to whether he has experienced or observed reduction in water availability over the years. And depending on the answer to that question, if the answer is yes, if he has or she has experienced reduction in water availability, then we ask, you know the farmer as to whether there are organizations that effectively allocate water amongst the different users. And based on the results of these two or three questions, we then assign the agriculture holding and its agriculture area sustainability status is green, yellow and red. So let's focus on holding one. This holding replied. Yes to the question that yes they're using water for irrigation. And ask them how much area are they irrigating, you know this holding says 89.7%. And then we asked them as to whether he has experienced reduction in water availability and this holding said no water is always available in sufficient quantity. Hence, we classify this holding as, as desirable, because the water level is stable in the area in which this holding is operating. The second holding says, yes, they have experienced reduction in water level in their wells, and it is progressively going down. We then ask the follow up question as to whether their organization that effectively ration or allocate water equitably across different users, and he replied, yes, they're working well. And hence we classify this holding is as acceptable. In the third condition, and the third holding in fact, they said yes water availability is going down water, water is in fact, what level is going down and in his or her wells. And there are no organization to be with water allocation. This holding is used using water to irrigate 74% of its agriculture area, and hence we classify this holding as unsustainable. And the last result is the same, we then aggregate the area classified as greens, yellows and red, we added up, we divided by the national representative agriculture area to calculate the proportions for for this indicator by sustainability statuses. So, as I was explaining in the presentation, these are the questions that we asked to the farmer or the holder of the agriculture holding. So the first question is, did this agriculture holding uses use water to irrigate crops. And a set of options are given. Yes, if the answer is yes then we ask about the area of the holding that the farmer is irrigating. And then the unit of my year is kept her as well. And then, if no, then, you know, we have a set of responses. No, I don't need irrigation. No, I cannot afford irrigation. No, there is no water available. Okay, so depending on the the different answers, we may have, we may have to carry out different kind of analysis. If the answer is yes to the first question. Yes, I aggregate, I use water to irrigate area of my holding. We then ask, are you observing any reduction in water availability from wells or other sources. Okay. Because for irrigation, it could be, you know, lift irrigation from lack, lakes, canals and rivers as well. And then, you know, a set of options are given. No water is always available in sufficient quantity when I need it. Yes, water levels in my well just progressively going down. Yes, water in the river lake or canal is getting scarce and I cannot have reliable supply when I need it. I don't know. And then, you know, the third question, are there organization dealing with water location in the area where this holding is located. There are a set of options. Yes, they are working well. Yes, but they are not working well. No, there are none. I don't know. Okay. And then of course, for the denominator, we ask the same question about the land use. Okay. So based on the, these three questions about the irrigation usage. So the reduction in water availability and organization dealing with water location, we assign sustainability statuses to the agriculture holdings and its agricultural land area. So the first step, of course, is to analyze the information that has been collected. So for let's focus on holding one. So water to irrigate crops. Yes, reduction in water availability experience no always water is always available in sufficient quantity organization dealing with water location. I don't know but we really don't care about about the answer to this question because you know the first question is sufficient for us to assign sustainability status to the agricultural holding. The total area irrigated by this particular holding is also captured. So it's six hectares out of nine which is which amounts to 66.67% of the entire agriculture land area of the holding and then the sustainability criteria which I explained to you is part of the presentation. So let's focus on the first holding. Yes, this holding is using water for irrigation. No water is always available in sufficient quantity irrespective of how much area this holding is irrigating. Because the water is available in sufficient quantity and the level is stable. We assign it a green status use water to irrigation. I don't know. Yes, they're working well. The area irrigated is only one hectare less than 10% so that is a sufficient condition for us to assign this holding at is variable status so if you go above and see this, the very first criteria. In this case, water availability remains stable over the years for farm irrigating crops on more than 10% of its agriculture area, and it's default results for farms irrigating less than 10% of its agriculture area. In this case because it's irrigating less than 10% it is classified as a screen and so on. So let's focus on the condition that we have developed we assign the agricultural holdings and its agricultural land area different statuses. And then of course we once the statuses are assigned to the agricultural holdings. We can add up the areas classified as greens, yellows and reds and divided by the national representative area for us to estimate the proportions or the percentages. So I stop here. If you have any question. We don't have any for for now. No question. Let's wait for a minute. And then I can proceed. I think this occasion for informing all of you that we will be sending all the presentations and all so all the relevant material. After the fourth day with the email that will summarize all of this we have said then we have a great. No question. I think we can move on with the next one. Okay, so let's move to the next. Subindicator in the environmental dimension effect the third one in the environmental dimension and six one in the entire framework of facility 241. So, in the context of 241 sustainable agriculture implies that the level of chemicals in the soil and water bodies remains within the acceptable thresholds. Now, the team for this particular subindicator is fertilizer risk, the coverage is all from types that a French period is last calendar year. Now this subindicator like the others is constructed using data collected to a set of questions asked to the farmer. About their use of fertilizer in particular the synthetic and mineral fertilizers animal manure and slurry their awareness about environmental risks associated with the use of fertilizers and their behavior in terms of plant nutrient management. So, here are the set of eight measures. The management measures or practices that were discussed with with experts and have been selected to assign the agriculture holding sustainability status is green yellow and red, depending on the extent to which the holding is practicing these eight measures. Okay, so I'm not going to go through the eight measures. These have very, these have been very well explained in course in the numerator manual and other support documents. So all the, all the practices that are listed here. So we see, you know, out of the eight, if the holding is practicing, like say for example, Ford, then we assign it green status if it is practicing less than four than it is assigned yellow statuses. And if it is, you know, one or less than one than it is assigned at states. So let me just show you the sustainability criteria. It uses fertilizer. Okay, but take at least four specific measures to mitigate environmental risk. Then it will be classified as green. Another condition is if the holding is not using any fertilizer whatsoever. Then of course it's not contributing negatively to the environment in terms of fertilizer usage, and hence this holding will be classified as as green by default. If it is classified as yellow, if the if it is using or practicing at least two measures to mitigate environmental risk, and the holding is classified as red. If it is using the fertilizer but take but doesn't take any measures from the lay it listed here to mitigate the negative impact of fertilizer usage on the environment then it will be classified as is right. Here is again, you know, a snapshot of the results that we were able to analyze for Bangladesh pilot tests back in 2018 and 19. So let's focus on holding one. We ask a question as to whether this holding is using fertilizer. If the answer is yes, we go then go to the follow up question. We asked the farmer while explaining each measure. We asked them as to what measures are they practicing currently out of the eight. And as you can see here, this holding is using fertilizer. Yes, out of the eight this holding has adopted or is practicing only two measures. Okay, and as per the criteria listed here, the farm uses fertilizer and take at least two specific measures to mitigate environmental risk, it is assigned yellow or acceptable status. Holding to is using fertilizer and is using none of the measure or has adopted none of the measure, and hence it is classified as is non sustainable holding 37 is not using fertilizer at all. Okay, and hence we don't even go to the second question by asking them about the measures, we automatically classify it as desirable. And so on. Okay, so based on the conditions that we have built that we have developed. And the agriculture holding and its agriculture land area sustainability statuses by looking the extent to which they are applying these eight measures related to the usage of fertilizer on its agriculture holding. The first step obviously is remains the same once the sustainability statuses are assigned based on the responses given by the farmer or the holder of the culture holding to the set of two questions. We then aggregate the sustainability statuses to the holding as well as to the agricultural land area. We then aggregate the areas classified as green cellos and red and divided by the nationally representative area to estimate the proportions. So let me go to the Excel sheet. As I was mentioning in the survey module that we have developed. We asked a couple of questions. The first is, did this agriculture holding used any synthetic or mineral fertilizer or any man manure or slurry for crops. The answer could be yes or no if the answer is no we don't go further. Okay, we just classify the holding is green by default. If the answer is yes we then go to the follow up question. This holding takes specific measure to mitigate the environmental risk associated with the usage of synthetic and mineral fertilizer. Yes or no, if yes, then we go to the next question and we ask about these, these eight specific measures. Okay. These are the measures which I showed you as part of the presentation. And then we see what extent or which measures are practiced by the agriculture holding and based on that we assign the holding sustainability statuses. So let's focus on holding one day use fertilizer yes. So how many measures have they adopted or comply with. So they have adopted in total three of the eight, and then based on the logic which I explained. For the sustainability criteria, we assign the agriculture holding green yellows and red statuses. Okay. So as you can see here. You know, in this case, this holding will be assigned acceptable status because the farm uses fertilizer and take at least two specific measure to mitigate environmental risk. So it means it will be classified as a sale holding for is using fertilizer and take four measures. Hence, it is classified as green and holding nine is not using any fertilizer whatsoever so it's not negatively contributing to the environment in terms of fertilizer usage so it is classified as green as well. Then we assign the sustainability statuses to the agricultural land area of the respective folding. And then, lastly, we aggregate the areas greens yellows and reds, divided by the national representative agricultural land area to estimate the proportions. So, I will stop here. The first sub indicator in the environmental dimension is management of pesticides dimension is one environmental force, the team is pesticide risk, the coverage is all fun types, the reference period is last calendar here. To visualize pesticides are important input inputs in modern agriculture. But if not well managed, they can cause harm to people health or as well to the environment. The proposal indicator is based on information on the use of pesticides on the farm. The type of pesticide use and the type of measure taken to mitigate the associated trace with pesticide usage. Now, again, let me emphasize that there are other gold standards. Okay, there, there could very well be other data collection tools and approaches, which will give us more objective results. Vis-a-vis the farmer declaration that we are using within the framework of SC241. But as Tomar highlighted, and I will elaborate on that in many developing countries, you know, these objective measures of data collection, like say for example, soil sampling monitoring systems, etc. These doesn't exist. And hence this was the response that we got earlier in the process while we were developing the methodology, many of the developing countries said that we don't have access to these kind of data collection systems. Hence we would like you to simplify the methodology and thus we then shifted away from the gold standard measurement approaches for the for the sub indicators to a more subjective approach which is based on farmer responses or his or her declaration. I wanted to highlight this point. So in terms of the management of pesticides, two sets of measures have been devised or proposed to countries for them to see, and then ask the farmer to what extent they are implementing. The first one is health related measures. And the second one is environment related measures with usage of with usage of pesticides. So again, I'm not going to go through the set of measures, these are self explanatory and have been well explained in the in the support documents, especially in the numerator manual. But just for the sake of, you know, to give you some kind of hint in the health related measure. We ask as to whether the holding is adhering to label direction for pesticide use, including use of protection equipment while applying pesticides, maintenance and cleansing of protection equipment after use, and save disposal of waste of pesticides and waste of these cottons bottles and bags and so on. Okay. And likewise for the environment we have a set of seven measures. And then we see out of these two group of measures to what extent the agriculture holding is adopting adopting these measures. So this is how the sustainability criteria or the thresholds for this particular sub indicators have been designed. The holding uses only moderately or slightly hazardous pesticides, WHO class two and three. In this case, it adheres to all three health related measures, and at least four out of seven of the environment related measures. Okay. So the holding class, you know, qualifies or comply with this criteria, they will be classified as three. Get carried away by the terminology moderately or slightly hazardous pesticide because these have been well explained by World Health Organization. There are guidelines to which a reference has been given in the support document. And the interviewer as well as the interview we are the respondent can easily identify as to whether the pesticides that they are using are slightly moderately or slightly hazardous or extremely or highly hazardous. Okay. So we will provide you. This has already been provided but you know if need be we can we can share the WHO class 23 with you again. The second condition is, if the agriculture holding is not using any pesticide whatsoever, it's not contributing to the harm to the environment in terms of fertilizers for pesticide usage in first place. And hence, we will classify those agriculture holding is is green by default. Now one point that I would like to highlight is that FAO by no means is recommending farmers not to use pesticides, because from from the second condition it seems like FAO is asking countries not to use pesticides. In any case, think of it, you know, of this criteria as we are approaching the impact of agriculture on the environment. So the farms are not using pesticide in first place they're not contributing to the environmental problem and hence they are green. They are using pesticide that should comply with the set of practices, which will safeguard both the health of the people working on the holding as well as the environment in which that particular agricultural holding is operating. The farm will be classified as as yellow if it is using slightly or moderately hazardous pesticide again WHO class 23 and take at least two measures, each from health and environment. Then the farm will be classified as red if it uses highly or extremely hazardous pesticide again this has been defined and explained by WHO. You know in its guidelines it's called class one a in one B. If the holding is using illegal pesticides. Okay, then in this case the holding will be classified as red. The holding is using moderately or slightly hazardous pesticide without taking specific measures to mitigate environment or health risk with its use fewer than two from from each category, then in this case the holding will be classified as as red. So based on the set of questions like for other. Sub indicators we collect this information from the from the respondent. We ask them as to whether they are using pesticide. Obviously, as you can see here the answer is yes, predominantly yes for for all agriculture holding the one we selected from Bangladesh pilots, which is expected. This holding is using highly or extremely hazardous or illegal pesticides. There are three measures from the environmental group, and two measures from the health group. Okay, and hence this holding is classified as unsustainable, because in this case, as you can see here, as you can see here, if you are using highly or extremely hazardous pesticides or illegal pesticides you are by default classified as as read only if you are using moderately or slightly hazardous pesticide we then go into into the adoption of the measures related to health and environment. Okay. Holding to the use pesticide. They're using moderately or slightly hazardous pesticides so we then ask about the set of measures. It is using two measures from both the groups, and hence it is classified as yellow and so on. Okay. As you can see here for holding 12. It's using moderately or slightly hazardous pesticides is adhering to four measures from environment out of seven and three from health out of three, and hence we classified it as desirable. The last step remains the same like for other indicators we aggregate the areas classified as greens yellows and red we divided by the national representative agriculture area to estimate the proportions. And the questions that are asked in a CG 241 survey module is, did this agriculture holding use any pesticide for crops or livestock production. The answer could very well be yes or no if yes we go to the second question. What type of pesticide this agriculture holding used moderately or slightly hazardous highly or extremely hazardous or illegal pesticide. Now, these terms moderately or slightly hazardous, highly or extremely hazardous, as I mentioned earlier, have been defined by WHO World Health Organization in their guidelines. And we have added instructions for the numerator. While he's asking this question he will explain to the farmer as to what he means by moderately or slightly hazardous or highly or extremely hazardous. Okay. So, this explanation is provided while the numerator is administering this question to the interview we are the respondent for him to get the appropriate responses. And then we asked question about, you know, the health related measures and the environment related measures and see to what extent this holding is adopting those those practices. A question about as to whether the holding it off specific measure to avoid environment related risk if the answer is yes, we go below the set of measures. Now, in the, in the criteria in the presentation I showed you seven environment related measures and three health related measures. Now, over here for analysis sake, we have broken down the seven measures into into 12. Okay, this is just for the sake of simplicity to better provide information to the interviewer. So based on the on the set of information collected to this question. We then start classifying the agriculture holdings and it's a cultural and area sustainability statuses. And one use of pesticide yes type of pesticide use moderately or slightly hazardous adherence to the health related measures out of three one adherence to the environment related measures out of 12 three. Here we see the overall result for all agricultural holdings based on their usage of pesticides, the type of its usage, and the measures taken to mitigate its negative impact on the environment and health of the people who are working on the and based on this information using the, the logic for sustainability criteria criteria which I explained to you. We assigned the holdings sustainability statuses green yellow and red. So for example holding one uses of this ideas moderately or slightly hazardous pesticide environment related measure three health related measure one, and hence, this holding is classified as non sustainable, because as you can see here. The other condition says that the holding should take at least two measures from from both categories. And in this case, it is only adopting one measure from health. So it is classified as non sustainable this holding on the flip side is adopting two measures each from both groups and hence it is classified as acceptable. And this holding is not using pesticides at all for its agricultural production. So by default, this holding is classified as as desirable and so on. And the last step, as I mentioned earlier remain the same. We classified the agricultural holding and a sacred cultural and area sustainability statuses, we add up the areas classified as green yellows and reds. And by the national representative area to estimate these proportions. So I, I stop here. So okay. So the last sub indicator within the environmental dimension is use of agro biodiversity supportive practices. The dimension is environment, the team is biodiversity. The coverage is all from types and the reference period is last calendar here. So in terms of the biodiversity sub indicator, it was subject of discussion and refinement in 2019 as part of the 2020 comprehensive review of the global indicators framework. We involved a country led working group, which was coordinated by Canada with Brazil USA Argentina Chile France and Russia's members. And after an air long discussion and consultations toward the end of 2019 or compromise consensus on on this sub indicator criteria were reached after which it was stable again for interagency and expert group on sustainable development goals review. We are the group re approved and re endorsed the methodology of this particular sub indicator in November 2019. From this perspective, the sub indicator measure the level of adoption of agro biodiversity supportive practices by the farm ecosystem species and genetic levels for both crops and livestock. Now, one important point is that specifically in case of this sub indicator. The scope is the entire area of the agriculture holding as opposed to other sub indicators for which the denominator was agricultural land area. So this is an important consideration. Now, based on whether organic agriculture is wild widely practice in a country to set of criteria are proposed. One for countries practicing traditional agriculture. And another one for countries where organic agriculture is practiced. So the countries where no organic agriculture is practice we propose the following practices or set of information that we are able to retrieve from the questions that we have already asked within the agriculture survey model. Okay, so this is the mix of practices as well as other information that that is used. Based on the data collected using the questions in the agriculture survey. I'm not going to go into the details again of these these measures or practices, because these are again, let me emphasize these are well explained in the methodological note as well as the support documents. Now, as you can see here, we, I mentioned earlier that we are proposing two sets of measures one for country with organic certification and one for country with no organic certification. So for country with no organic certification we propose five measures for countries with organic certification we propose six measures. The five remain the same, we only add one additional, which is agriculture holding produce agricultural products that are organically certified, or its products are undergoing the certification process applies only to countries, or to agriculture with with certification systems or processes in place. Okay. There could very well be instances in, you know, there could be a country where some holdings are practicing organic agriculture and others are not in this case for the for the holdings that have organic certification, or they are in process of getting those holdings. In this case, we will, we will ask those holding and and and assess them based on six criteria. The holdings with no organic certifications in the same country will be assessed based on the based on the five criteria. Okay. And I mean we had to come up with a sustainability criteria or thresholds for for for this particular sub indicator and the way it's structured is for countries or agriculture holdings with organic certificates in place. It will be assigned green color. If it meets at least three of the of the six criteria. And yellow color if the holding meets at least one of the six criteria and the holding will be assigned red status, if it is, if it meets none of the six criteria. The country's with no organic certification, the holding will be classified as green if it meets at least two of the five criteria, the holding will be classified as yellow if it is. If it meets one of the five criteria and it will be classified as red if it meets none of the criteria. Now, as I was mentioning this indicator was subject to further refinements in 2019. So it got changed significantly. Since the pilots that we conducted in Bangladesh back in 2018 and 19, early 19, and hence, we don't have actual numbers to show to you for this particular sub indicator, but in any case we will show you the the example in the Excel sheet that we have developed. So let me introduce you to the, to the participants. So, for this presentation, our colleague Flavio Bolliger is a colleague of the statistics division or FAO will be presenting now the SDG to for one in the context of the AgriService program and the 50 by 2013 initiative. So Flavio has a degree in agronomy and another one in economy. He was the coordinator of agriculture of the Brazilian Institute of geographic and statistics from 2003 to 2015. And then at FAO, he contributed to the implementation of the global strategy to improve agriculture and rural statistics as the research coordinator. And, sorry, and since 2018, he acts as technical coordinator in the survey team in the division of FAO. He has experience in economy focusing on the social economic statistics, active on agriculture statistics agribusiness economic statistics and sustainable development. Flavio, you have the floor. Thank you very much, Stefania. Good morning. Well, today I will talk with you about the the production of the indicator two for one, in the context of two different standard programs and surveys, promote by FAO. And we are talking about this AgriService program that's and then the fifth by that initiative is two programs. Much or many of you know that important initiatives have been taken to improve a good statistics across the world. The initiatives start in 2008, the main idea. In the context of this price crisis. We had that time and evaluation about the offer of data and quite of data on the world. The conclusion of this evaluation is that the quality and the quantity of statistics was declining and and with that, a group of countries goes to the United Nations to implement a bridge program named global strategy to improve a good statistics. It's 15 years project in the first phase, dedicated capacity, but mainly to development. And in the context of the global strategy. Several guidelines was produced. In particular, one could go ahead line name agriculture, AgriService, integrated survey. So that's a complete proposal in terms of strategy to implement a multi-purpose AgriService survey going beyond the traditional AgriService statistics. So, and this AgriService methodology was implemented in different countries in a kind of pilot, five countries. And nowadays this project, named 5x30 initiative, have the idea to scale up this for 50 countries in the world until 2030. So, as I said, this the systems also collect data and social, technological, environmental aspects of the agricultural activities. You can find all this information on the link in this presentation. So, as I said, some countries were working with some countries in two different projects in the AgriService program. So, the first project came by the Senegal, Uganda, receiving technical assistance and financial support and Armenia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Nepal, and Uruguay, who had support on just on technical assistance. They had support by USAID and the second for Gates Foundation. And now, the 5x30 initiative include both technical support and financial support. So, the onboarding process is running now, some of the countries before supported by us and by the MS-ISI program are considered pre-approved and the onboarding process is ongoing and new countries are selected in the beginning of this year to join. And now, initiative also can support countries on AgriSmethodology through TCPs and across the world, different countries are having this support also. The AgriSmethodology is, as I said, a multi-propose system to collect data, and define a cycle of 10 years where base data is collected every year and different rotating models are applied in different years in order to avoid excessive burden for the respondent and according to the frequency need of the data. The standard proposal is like this, going to the field with the model on economic order each year and label in each five years methods and environment each five years and as well machine and equipment and assets. So, this is a schema proposal in the AgriS Handbook. The AgriS Handbook has a standard questionnaires, standard models for all these themes and annual questionnaire should be built combining different models and is a kind of menu of questions of themes that should be chosen by the country in terms to do the customization of the instrument. Well, the AgriS Handbook was developed in 2017 and published in the beginning of 2018. In that time, the 241 indicator was not finalized or completely defined the characteristics of the 241. So, the standard questionnaires do not include all the requirements for 241, but some requirements, yes, are there. Because of that, in collaboration with colleagues ABAP and Stefani and other colleagues, we develop a document who most shows what adaptations should be done to cover the requirements for 241 using the AgriS standard questionnaire. And two options are discussed, one is just add to the core model, the standard model for every year of 241 of AgriS requirements. For that, it's necessary to do 32 additions, questions. Or another possibility is to go to the field with requirements distributed among the two different models, the economic and the production methods and environment model. In this case, the economic model has a series of the information already required for 241 and as well the environment model. In this case, the additional questions, we need less additional questions, 13 for the economy and 10 for the production methods. So, a proposal absolutely integrated including all the requirements is already developed and can be done using the AgriS instruments in two ways. It's important to say that depends on the system adopted in terms of frequency of models. In the second options, the all sub indicators of 241, to complete the all sub indicators, you need two routes, two years, in the first case, all the indicators is produced in the same year. Here you can see the distribution of the 11 sub indicators according to the different options. So, going to the field with the PME model is an option in the same year and all indicators can be collected using adding the requirements for economic and social in the core model. The second option in the year, one year, collect the indicators 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, so the economic and social education one year and the the environment indicators, sub indicators in the next year when the environment model will be in place. This is a solution proposed by us. Well, the fifth by third initiative as I said, is a partnership involving as implementing the institution FAO, World Bank and EFAT has more or less the same proposal of our AgriS program to improve the quality of the agricultural data on the national level, but the three but explicitly aim to support countries on the production of the zero hunger indicators, including the 241 and the productivity and income indicators as well and gender indicators. So, the main goal of the fifth by 30 is to support countries on production of the STGs. On here, we have more or less the schema that we are going to follow the next years. So, this year we have six pre-approved countries and two new countries will be included in the system. In 2002, other five countries and other six pre-approved countries and in 2013, 23, 23, others, others, nine countries. So, with that, we are going to cover 50 countries until the end of 2013. For fifth by 30, additional work on developing instruments and methodology was done and a bit different systems were proposed. In this case, in the fifth by 30, we offer two programs. One program named agricultural survey program is very similar we saw on AgriS, having a core model to be collected with this core model every year with basic data and three different models. The first name income label and productivity, the second production methods environment, and the third machinery given in assets. So, and the second program is named integrated culture and rural survey program is similar to the previous but has an additional model possible model naming income and live in conditions. Live in standards that collect data on the households, linked to the holding, agricultural holding. In this case also a special strata on non farm households in rural areas are selected also. In this way. Also, rural development indicators can be produced and information relating agriculture and social characteristics of the producers are possible to be produced. So, is a has this additional aim to complete the integrated is integrated survey also covering the household as a unit observation beyond in addition to the how the holding and cultural holding. So, the fifth by two survey tools include questionnaires. The core questionnaire and the other four questionnaires as a. The income labor productivity correspond to the economic and labor on AgriS. This known farm income, you know, leaving studied household questionnaire. This is this special one for household, and then machine equipment assets and produce medicine environment questionnaires is important to highlight that in the case of a by 30. The standard questionnaire is already integrated the core and the rotating models are integrated in a complete questionnaire. So all the core question the basic question is integrated in the ELP may and pay as PME questionnaires. And different variations who are produces a variation of the instrument for that the collection. Using the one visit approach. That means one operation in the year collecting data about the previous year. Or in May tour more visits. In this case, we have also instruments to collect data separately from the major and minor season and postponing plus harvest question there. So it's important to said that in the case of it by 30. The all requirements for to fund is in the is already integrated in the tools developed because it was developed a few years ago. So, and again, you have the solution wasn't integrated is again considered two years on the collection. And in the first year with ELP and ELS questionnaire, collecting the economic and social indicators, and in the second year. When going to the production methods in the publication are collecting the university subeducators. So that's the solution also implemented already implemented in the instruments. This is just an example now. This question on and Tanner is included in the LP. Different question are distributed in different sessions because also in the fifth by 30 the approach is collected in the level in the parcel level. So the information on Tanner is collected parcel by parcels. When I guess is about the whole as a whole. And so on. You can see here the questions included in the PME questionnaire. There are different aspects of the environment dimension of the two for one already integrated in the in different sessions of the PME question. So the document on explaining all these solutions for us and for fit by 30 and how to come compute to foreign using the variables collect on the systems. We are finalizing this document. And with all these aspects covered the measure approach the data collection approach to the using a standalone questionnaire and integrated survey with annex with all the questionnaire proposed. And this is this document is is about to be published by us. That's what I have for you. I'm a bit of for any questions. I think I can thank you a lot for this intervention and for sharing this presentation as usual at the SDG to for one with training. So thank you and enjoy your day Flavio. Thank you very much. Bye bye. Thank you bye bye. Okay, so while Flavio is stopping sharing the screen. I think it's 842 today. We have been a little bit late. Time is late according to the to the plan. So that was the the session for today we have been all almost all the environmental dimension so tomorrow, of course, as one guy will continue where he left so he will show you the excel for the the last sub indicator and then we will move to the social dimension with the last three sub indicators. Thank you for questioning the chat or not sorry, it was just a thanks for Flavio. So thank you again for having participated to this second day and see you tomorrow at 5am sharp again. Bye bye have a nice day evening or have a nice night. Bye bye. Bye bye. Have a good day. Bye bye. Bye bye thank you.