 Hello, good morning and for the last day. Good afternoon. Good evening everyone. Welcome to this last day of this virtual training. So today we have a very intense day because we need to cover quite a lot of presentations. So we will start the day with introducing the two SDG 241 questionnaires, meaning as from there we present the data collection tool. So the survey questionnaire and the alternative data sources. And then I will present the FO SDG 241 data collection questionnaire. Then we move to the results of the first 2020 dispatch. And finally, the last two presentation will be dedicated to the short, medium and long term expectations. And then we give the floor to statistics Indonesia that will share their experience in the data collection process, the overall challenges and the lesson learned. I'm sure that it will be a very interesting session for all participants. And then we close the meeting with an open discussion where each country will expose their challenges in the collection and reporting on the 241 and the actual plan to overcome them. So we are looking forward to this discussion because listening your experience will help us understanding better the situation and eventually assist you in the data collection and reporting on 241. In this session, we will cover in detail the data collection tools that have been developed by FAO to support countries and member states in their data collection and reporting efforts on SDG 2.4.1. I liked it, you know, over the course of the past three days, the focus of SDG 2.4.1 is to assess the sustainability of agriculture holdings and its agricultural land area. And this farm surveys offered an opportunity for collecting data through a single instrument for indicator 2.4.1. This decision to use farm survey was in line with country efforts supported by FAO to develop farm surveys or agriculture surveys is the most appropriate tool for generating agriculture statistics. The choice of farm survey was made because of the following reasons. So there were some underlying justifications based on which we decided that farm survey is the is the most suitable tool for us to collect information on SDG 2.4.1. Farm survey does exist in countries in one shape or form or another to collect data on different aspects of agriculture sector for various reasons, right. So every country may have some kind of agriculture survey already in place. The second justification was that the use of agriculture surveys will help collect information on all 11 sub indicators using one data collection instrument. Thus, avoiding the additional work of integrating information from different data sources that are usually managed by different institutions and organizations at the country level. So just to simplify the process of coordination, etc. We thought that it would be better for us to collect all this information in one single source. And third justification was that the use of agriculture surveys with the use of agriculture surveys for collecting information on 2.4.1. All information will be collected from the holding selected to a nationally representative samples, thus avoiding the problems associated with the use of different data sources. Okay. And fourth farm survey is expected to be cost effective in comparison to putting in place monitoring systems such as soil and water sampling and laboratory testing infrastructure. The geographical information system and robust administrative record system that are maintained and updated on on regular basis. However, just to tell you that, as I mentioned, you know during my presentation, the farm survey are very well suited to measure the economic dimension of sustainability of an agricultural holding. It may not be an ideal tool for measuring the environmental and social sustainability of the agricultural holding. So typically environmental impacts of agriculture are measured through monitoring systems as I mentioned earlier like say for example remote sensing soil and water sampling, or other tools associated with a specific area rather than a single agriculture system. In addition, we do understand that for several environmental teams, it is unlikely that the farmer would be able to assess the environmental impact of their farming practices on issues like fertilizer pollution and pesticide use. So using farm survey instead of environmental monitoring system would therefore employ moving away from measuring outcomes or impacts to assessing farmer practices and behaviors which are more subjective. Similarly, the information in the social dimension is generally captured to household surveys. While in the majority of cases agriculture farm holdings are closely associated with a given household, it is not always the case and therefore, do care must be given to capturing this information through the dedicated survey designs. Having said that the methodology of SE 241 does offer the country is the flexibility of using combination of different data sources, other than agriculture surveys, which are, which are called alternative data sources. Okay. So, in the context of 241 we offer around the farm survey approach we offer two solutions. One is this standalone farm survey questionnaire model which I have been talking about. This is. And the second one is agri-survey program and 50 by 2030 initiative, which my colleague Mr. Flavio Bolliger talked about the other day. This is a sequence of alternative data sources. As I mentioned earlier there are several that can be considered for reporting some of the selected sub indicator of SE 241, which include earth observation or geographical information system and remote sensing administrative records, household surveys monitoring systems and agriculture sciences, etc. So, let's take every option that I have listed here in turn. Okay, so let's focus first on the farm survey approach. So the first option within the farm survey approach is the standalone survey questionnaire, which is designed as a module that contain the minimum set of questions needed to collect information on NSS SE 241 at the farm and later at the national level. So it is flexible as it can be administered independently or attached as a separate module to an agriculture survey or it could also be integrated at appropriate places within existing within existing national farm surveys. And we have been doing this integration in many countries like say for example, Vietnam, Nepal, Peru, Colombia, just to exemplify a few countries whom we have been working with and currently working on. So cognitive tests of the of this survey module were carried out in Mexico, Bangladesh and Rwanda back in 2017 and 18. And this was obviously to refine the survey questionnaire from design flow comprehension recall and respondent judgment perspective, and to assess if the question asked sufficient and fully understood by a limited number of heterogeneous respondents. Then extended tests were carried out in Bangladesh, which I've been referring to throughout my presentation. And this was to test and revise the proposed criteria to collect data to test the sustainability criteria. Determine the time of the survey revise the state of scripts and routines that we have developed to analyze the Bangladesh pilot tests. And revise accordingly the methodological note and support documents. So, this standalone survey questionnaire is structured in five distinct sections with relevant questions about about each section so the very first section is is focused on the introduction, introduction to the survey module and identification of the holding holder. The second section collect information about area of the holding, which way which we have been discussing discussing by agriculture land use classes, and as well and tenor etc. Then section three has questions related to economic dimension of the holding section for has questions required for the environmental dimension of the holding. And then section five addresses the questions or captures the questions related to the social dimension of the holding. Yeah. So this is the survey module which I showed you very briefly the other day as well. It's already available online on sg241 web page, and it has been shared with you as as a resources for you to read before the streaming. It's very straightforward, simple to go through and read through. So, but by anyways, if you are interested, you can always go back to, you know, this instrument by clicking on this link. Apart from, you know, the survey module, which is which contains the obviously it's a questionnaire, we have developed support documents to go with the survey module, so that the countries are at ease in terms of their understanding of the of this instrument. So we have developed an enumerator manual. We have developed an instruction manual for data to operation and analysis. So once information is collected at the field, what do you do then with the data. Okay. Then we have developed guidelines on data analysis to compute the sub indicators. So once the data is entered using this manual. How then you play with the data or analyze the data for you to compute or construct the sub indicators. So we have produced a document on sampling guidance for us to for one as well. And we have developed this FAO statistical toolkit, which comprises of code book tabulation plan and more dealers data steps to support data analysis. Now obviously, depending on the country context, you know, these, this toolkit needs to be updated and revised accordingly. So it should be used with caution because this toolkit was developed to analyze the Bangladesh data that was collected using the survey model. So if a country is collecting this information within the context of their agriculture survey. They, they should take clues or take guidance from the toolkit but you know it shouldn't be replicated because it was designed for a specific purpose. So let's go through each of these support documents in turn. So the numerator manual has been developed to train the numerator servers and the supervisors before their field deployment to administer the questionnaire. It consists of the definition of the key terms concepts and the meaning behind the questions asked in the survey module. This provides the guidance to use to the use of skip questions and filter questions. And it has examples of commonly encountered instances or commonly encountered problems or issues where question and responses may not be easy to administer and record, respectively. So this numerator manual will be we are making full efforts to make this available in all human languages, at least then instruction manual on data into operations has been developed to describe data into operations. This is a step that must be performed. In order to organize the collected data into Excel spreadsheets, or in any other statistical package, which could be state of our or SPSS, or any other. The procedures to process and analyze data collected and construct the 11 sub indicators according to the dashboard approach. However, this document assumes that the emulators and data analysts are familiar with the survey questionnaire and the methodology of SDG 241 respectively. If not the emulator and the data and analysts are strongly encouraged to carefully read and get familiar with the with the documentation with the support documents before proceeding with reading this instruction manual. The results on data analysis and reporting are designed for use by both data producers and as well as data users. It is meant for government data and statistical authorities. There are sectors of society researchers and other organization that generate and or use data at statistics for calculating. SDG 241. It provides a step wise guidance on how to generate data. It provides a calculation of thresholds and eventual reporting of the 11 sub indicators at the dashboard and aggregate SDG 241 as well. Then we have a sampling guidance document which which I briefly touched upon during my presentation. It provides information on the sampling design sample size something units and frames. The reporting units, the different estimation domains. The estimator and stratification variables sample allocation in the strata and other issues related to SDG 241 sample selection. Again, because different countries will be using different sampling frames some will be using list frames other will be using the area frames and some will be using a mix of both. In this case, obviously the sampling guidance on SDG 241 is a broad, a broad guideline as to how countries can go about then refining or redefining their sampling design for them to be able to generate estimate about SDG 241 indicators which are nationally representatives as well as reliable and statistically significant. Then we have developed a learning courses around SDG 241 methodology. It provides information on the key aspects of the indicator. Cover the scope, the coverage, the dimension, the themes of indicator periodicity data collection and reporting processes and mechanisms, etc. So the e-learning course is already available online. Hopefully, you know, very soon it will be available in in different human languages as well for the time being it's in English. I believe, you know, either it is already available in Spanish or French or it will be available fairly soon. In any case, this e-learning course is also available on SDG 241 webpage. You can always go to the webpage and it's a very nice resource for you to get trained on on the indicator and towards the end of this e-learning course, you will be awarded a sort of a certificate for completion of the e-learning course. So it's good that you have taken this very exhaustive training on SDG 241. Because now for you going to this e-learning will refresh your memories and strengthen your understanding of the indicator even more. So these are the support documents which I've been talking about in my in the previous slides. All these are available on SDG 241 webpage. Okay, so all these documents which I've been talking about are built around this survey module that we have created for SDG 241 standalone survey module. Now option two, which was discussed by Mr. Flavio Bolliger the other day. I'm not going to go into the details of this option but just to refresh your memories. The idea here was to leverage and capitalize on agri-survey program, which is soon to be scaled up to 50 by 2030 initiative that aims to support 50 low and lower countries with the survey program by 2030. So we have put in efforts over the past three years to integrate not only SDG 241 data requirements but other forms of a base SDG indicators for which FAO is the stored in agency into these two flagship projects of FAO. In this respect for the agri-survey program like you know Flavio elaborated in detail on this. We integrated SDG 241 requirements into the core module and as well as we have another solution, which is we integrated the question into the economy and PME modules. Now if you may remember the agri-survey program questionnaire is divided into different modules. Some are fixed, which are administered every year, which is the core module and other are rotating, which is the economy, PME and other modules. For the 50 by 2030 initiative we have integrated 241 question in the PME module, which is production methods and environment, allowing for SE 241 collection in one single layer. In any case, you can always go back to Flavio's presentation that we will share with you or maybe we have already shared with you for you to have a good understanding as to how we went about integrating SDG 241 into these two projects. Here is the, here are the snapshots of the documents that have already been published. So we have a published handbook on agriculture integrated survey. Now as Flavio mentioned the other day, this handbook was finalized back in 2017, I believe. So, back then the methodology of SE 241 was not yet finalized. So, this egress handbook which is available freely online and you can always download it. You can have SE 241 requirements, you know, built into the egress methodology. However, later on we develop this technical note for countries who are or will be the beneficiary of egress survey program, or those who on themselves want to want to implement egress approach. We have developed this technical note on how to mainstream SE 241 in egress and 50 by 2030 initiative. So as, and the option three is the use of alternative data sources. So we, we discussed the data collection approaches around from survey and the use of alternative data sources for, for each sub indicator. So we identified, apart from agriculture surveys, which is given in column, column three here, for which the methodology is designed of for which the every sub indicator methodology is designed to be collected using agriculture survey. As per current methodology, however, you know, we understand that some information about these sub indicators and can be collected to order data sources. For example, if I farm output value per hectare, for it information can be collected in agriculture or livestock senses. Some information about at least the crop productivity can be estimated using GIS and remote sensing. So we have this information about about livestock and crops as well within the context of their household survey, or their code very well be other specialized studies, and so on so for each sub indicator we have identified potential or possible alternative data sources that the can use for them to be able to report on the respective sub indicators of SC241 if, if their agriculture survey lacks the questions or the information about SC241. Now, just to, you know, take note of one important consideration. So several aspects needs to be carefully considered prior to using alternative data sources. In order to produce consistent and reliable data as per recommended periodicity which is set at three years, as well to respect the scope of the indicator which is covering crops and livestock, or a mix report. So it is advised that the use of alternative data sources may be considered when available data set fulfill the following criteria. So first of all, it should be demonstrated that alternative data sources. And the respects the recommended certification, that is the farm typologies, the sector, the sector of the holding production system whether it's crop livestock or mixed, and as to whether this holding is using water for irrigation or not. It should be made sure that data are available at same level of territorial desegregation as farm survey. Secondly, you know, it should be made sure that the alternative data sources capture the same phenomena as proposed by the farm survey. Okay. So it should be compliant with international or national standards and classification system to be internationally comparable. Can be reflected or attributed to agriculture land area in the country considering different farm typologies and agriculture regions. It should reflect the reference and periodicity so that it is homogeneous across the sub indicators. Now this alternative data sources can also be used to complement the farm survey data. It can be used to this combined approach has the potential to improve the validity and soundness of the results in particular in countries that have well established monitoring systems. When we are able to produce quality information consistently over time. It is always a voice for them to use alternative data sources in complementarity with the farm server. This information from other sources may be used and leverage in different ways depending on quality and regularity of its collection. For example, farm survey questions when alternative sources of information are available and respond to the criteria mentioned on the previous slide. It can complement farm survey questions by providing additional contextual information that is helpful to interpret. It can be used to cross check the farm survey results to identify any inconsistencies and ensure the robustness of the indicator. This validation exercise can be done both exposed or during the data collection by providing the external data to the numerator before going to the field. In this way the numerator can probe whether the responses to the surveys are consistent with the a priori external knowledge. In any case, it is recommended that countries complement the farm survey information with with information from from other sources. As this will provide additional information and help prospecting the robustness of SE 241 with regards to the different dimensions captured within the framework of SE 241. So I stop here. This is let me just quickly show you all these documents which I just talked about. It's funny if in the meanwhile if there is some question I'm happy to take those let me just play though. Yes, actually, there is a question but it's on the security and your rights to land. So, okay. Sure, sure. Go ahead. Okay, so if they are asking, can you please kindly review the, this will be a door security security rights to land was in the exercise file that you have presented. Yes, I know, but what do we do with the answer don't know or refuse to answer. Okay, so all of this information on what to do with the non response or with no responses or don't want to respond have been as I was mentioning is captured in the data analysis document. I would suggest to you to go to the document for you to not only get information about no response, but you know, other responses that are that are given in the question apart from yes and no. So, instead of going into the specificity of this particular sub indicator, I would suggest to you to go to the support document let me just show you as to as to what documents I've been talking about, which will be helpful in answering this question as well as many others that you may have around around once the data is collected how do you then proceed with the different options that have been given in the question. As you can see here we are on SCG 241 webpage. We don't see anything. Okay. So as you can, as all of you can see we are an SCG 241 dedicated webpage that we are maintaining regularly and updating regularly as we proceed. You can find all of the information that we covered as part of this training and even more to keep yourself abreast of the developments that are happening, you know, on the indicator on different fronts. Whether it's methodological data collection capacity development, etc. or reporting. So I was showing you the other day, you know, here you will find the information clubbed into different categories. So in the methodology will see the metadata that we submitted back in 2015 and then we kept on revising it. So this is a concise and crisp information as to what the indicator is about. Then the methodological note which is already available here Arabic Spanish and French and it will be available in Chinese and Russian fairly soon. Then the data collection and reporting, whereby we have the file question and which which Stefania will explain in her presentation, the survey module that I just covered as part of the presentation before during the session. The sampling guidance for SCG indicator 2.4.1 guidelines on data analysis and reporting and here you will find, you know, all your questions answered related to data analysis is what to do with no responses and non response and I don't want to respond. What to do with those right, so you will get your question answered once you are in that stage by reading this document. Then instruction manual on data interpretations and numerator and manual for the survey model. Okay. Then you know all of the capacity development, you know, efforts that we have undertaken in the past to improve countries abilities and capabilities for them to collect information and report data on the indicator. So a similar kind of bilateral or, you know, bilateral workshops and conversations and consultations were carried out with many countries somewhere designed like, you know this training whereby we invited or a group of countries to go through the methodology and presentation process of SCG 2.4.1. And here is the e-learning course which I just spoke about. So you just click on this link and you will be able to, you know, get yourself trained once again in a different way in a more virtual and interactive way for you to be able to, you know, equip yourself and strengthen your concepts as far as 2.4.1 is concerned. And then we have other related links which are, you know, which are very good because it gives you the contextual information around SCG 2.4.1 as to how we went about developing the indicator. And then you have information on the focal points. So you can just simply click on these. And this is the SCG indicator page. So if you have questions beyond 2.4.1 about any other SCG indicator, the 21 that we are custodian agency for, then in this case you can click here and ask us the question directly. Or if you have a specific question related to 2.4.1, we have already been interacting with you and, you know, through SCG 2.4.1 through this email address. So if you have any question or query you can always come back to us by writing to us. Okay. So I just stopped sharing. Okay, perfect. So we have seen the theoretical parts and notions with Aspandia. We have seen the data collection tools. Now let's move to another practical part. So I wish I wish for now how FAO gets the data on the SDG 2.4.1 from countries, meaning the SDG 2.4.1 questionnaire, which you have all received on August last year. And you will soon receive it once again during the coming months or the coming months. So we have one single questionnaire that comes in Excel format, and it's indeed the key instrument to collect data from countries. It covers all the three dimensions and all the 11 sub-indicators that we have seen in these days. It is sent to countries once a year, even if we have seen that the periodicity for the SDG 2.4.1 is three years. But in this way we can monitor the availability of data on an annual basis, since it is a brand new indicator. We can identify changes and get data points through the years, considering also that often we do not get many data, especially now that we are at the starting phases. Assess the country needs in terms of capacity development. So for example, technical assistance and trainings, so exactly how we did for this training. And lastly, confirm the national focal points contacts, which is always a crucial information for us so that we are in contact immediately with the appropriate person. So what we have done so far, we have tested the questionnaire in 45 countries through a biotech exercise carried out from December 2019 to April 2020. Initially the questionnaire was only in English and we have translated it in July 2020 to three official languages, which are Arabic, French and Spanish. And then we have had our first official dispatch on August 10th last year. We have sent the questionnaire to 195 countries, including your countries of course. So the questionnaire has been sent to the SDG 241 focal points to the general SDG focal point to the head or NSO, and we have copied all the offices and the relevant people. I'm going to show the results of this pilot test and the official dispatch right after this presentation. So we have improved the layout following the of course country comments that got from the dispatcher from the pilot. So here it is shown how the question is organized. So it is composed by eight worksheets. We have three introductory sections. So the core page, the instruction, the definitions. The data reporting sections of one for each dimension and two supplementary information sections for the metadata for the for the feedback. So I'm going to show in detail all of this in a minute. This is a preview of how the question is displayed so you can see the different sheets here at the bottom. So I'm going to be addressing detail this eight sections. So the first one the cover page as country specific information. So meaning the national focal point concept detail that as I said, it's a key information for us for every smooth communication with the country. With instruction on how to complete the question and it gives also an overview of the question structure. And it is very important that you go through this section for filling the question properly. And it's followed by another page that explains the definition and the other key concepts and the terms and the international standard views. So all those sections are very important to fill properly the questioners. So the second section of the is the core of the questioner, let's say, so it's where the data are requested the meaning where the country needs to fill the space with the data. This includes all the three dimension as I said so the trees of indicators for the economic the five for the environmental, and then again the tree for the social dimensions. And this is how they are displayed. So the last section as I said it's about the supplementary information. So when the data part quite intuitive is collects metadata on country coverage source of data unit on measurement frequency of data collection and so on. And finally, the feedback section that is simply a survey with 10 questions that help us understanding if some areas still need to be improved. So now let me show you how to fill the excel properly. So the first page. So it's a cover page is like this one. You need to fill these columns with the national focal point content detail, even if this has already been shared and sent to fo in the past. This will help us understand if the focal point is confirmed, or if he or she has been changed. So without that, these are the focal point content details that we have for your country, and the response rates of the pilot space, if your country was part of it, and of the 2020 dispatch. So when the space is left bank is means that we don't have yet any SDG to for one focal point. So please ask these countries to provide us this information as soon as possible. So Australia, Busan, Brunei, Cambodia, etc. While where you see the red box, it means that we do have the focal institution, but we do not have a specific focal point name. So you can imagine how it is crucial for us to to get immediately in contact with the proper person. So I kindly ask also these countries to write me in the chat if they want now or by email to inform us about the focal institution. So not only the focal institution, or I mean if the focal point has changed so whatever information is very important for us. So in this case, Fiji, India, Japan and Laos are the countries where we miss the focal point name. So you can see the why at the end, if the country sent the question back or not. So for the 2019 column, for example, so we are talking about the pilot phase. It means that, for example, so Cambodia, Fiji, India were part of the pilot test, but none of them replied while Malaysia did. For the 2020 column, it is related to the first comprehensive dispatch of last year. And you can see we still have many countries that didn't respond. We know that this still a starting phase, and we hope we do hope to have some data from your countries for the second batch plan planned for next month. So for the three data reporting sections, you will have two pre-filled columns with the values that your countries have provided in the 2020 dispatch. So the 2019 column includes data of the year 2019, while the 2018 columns includes data of the year 2018 and before. This is because last year we have asked to report the latest data available year. So it could be 2018, as well as 2017, 16 and so on. So if the data you provided in the 2020 dispatch was referring to the year 2015, for example, you will find them in the 2018 column. So please note that those columns have not to be modified unless you have any updated information for those year. So let's say that last year you provided some provisioning data and now you have final data so you can change the data in these columns. So actually you only need to fill the 2020 column. The columns need to be filled with the values or with the percentage following these described criteria. So referring only to the year 2020, the reference year that we use is the calendar year from January to December, we have seen this. If there is no data available in your country, you insert zero if it is not occurring, but potential applicable, or you can put NA so not applicable if it is really not applicable at all. This second column that has to be filled its notes where you should insert explanation in case data reporting using different national definitions, so not the ones described in the definition worksheets, or if the data reporting using a different reference column, so not the calendar year from January to December. If there has been any changes in the columns 2018 and 2019. So that for us were easy to understand if you have made some changes. So if you have this right in the, in the notes and any other relevant information that you think are useful for us that we will be analyzing your questionnaires. So about the other sections, the metadata section is composed by a big table with all the 11 indicators listed and the columns where you can specify for each of them, all these the metadata listed here. So type of variable availability user measurements and so on. So the last big math as I said there are six questions with the scale response from strongly agree to strongly disagree, and then you have for open questions, if the country wants to suggest that something more in detail. So that's all concerning the question that we will be sending next month and we have sent those last year. If you have any question about the questioner. Till now there is no question in chat box. Participant can ask directly as well. Or do you have any comments, please feel free to ask. Okay seems we don't have any question. Yeah, perfect. And maybe remark, please, when when filling the questioner read carefully all the instructions, because you have a lot of information in the index cell. So if you have any doubts, if you go in detail in all the description and the structure which are in the in the Excel, you will find for sure the the answer or your question. But of course, in case you don't have you don't find the solution you can write us. And we will be happy to, to help you feeling the, the questioner. I think we can break now before moving to the next presentation. Asfanya, do you think we can break up an hour or maybe a little bit less today. I would say let's break out for maybe 15 minutes rather than half an hour, just to just to make sure that we, we cover everything that we are supposed to. Yes. Welcome back. Hope you had a nice break. Asfanya we have one question from Indonesia. They are asking, is it okay if there is a difference in the time period of the survey answers between household and company. So where the household only usually use a period of one year ago from the day of the memorization, while for companies using the calendar and recording the economic activities must households have difficulty remember when using the calendar year. Yeah, that's, that's fine and we understand that, you know, the survey cannot be administered for both these sectors simultaneously in most cases. And as you rightly pointed out, I mean, the company may be maintaining its financial record. Using a financial year while the order fiscal year, while the household may be using calendar year as long as you know the survey results. You know, published are referring to a common year let's say for example, 2021 in this case or maybe 2020 or 2019. It's okay, the two survey time periods, you know, vary by four or five or six months I mean that's that's that's fairly usual. So I think I can move now with my next presentation. So, as I mentioned before, and I will present the findings of the concept of this patch that we have carried out last year. Let me quickly give you some background. In December to May 27 we have carried out a pilot test with 45 countries using the SDG to for one questioner. We have then analyze the results of the test and refine the questioner. And in August 2020, the file that a collection question was dispatched for the first time to the member count is to so 195 in total. These are the objectives of the dispatch. So the main scope is collecting data from all the 9995 countries using the questioner. Specifically, we want to understand the availability of data, although we already know that availability of data in these first years will be low. In particular, we are interested in actual data, but also in understanding the current data availability relevant to sustainable agriculture. Then to her to help in further design and implementation of the SDG to for one medium term data collection strategy. This leverage is strongly on the farm survey based data collection efforts that are currently be implemented in countries on this under the agris survey program, the 50 by 2030 initiatives, and the global strategies based on then evaluate the country needs in terms of capacity development and technical support on SDG to for one. That is why we have organized these virtual trainings. And last but not least, as I said before, get country for that points content details, which means confirming what we already know or getting new information. My frame for the dispatch process was set from August to mid March 2021. There has been a coordination and discussion with several countries, and we finally prepared a report with the results in April 2021. We know that of course some countries that replied after that time. So after 15 March 2021 are unfortunately not part of the final report so not part of this presentation. Let's just say a few words on this 2020 dispatch. So, for sure, results, generally speaking, have improved compared to the pilot test, though, a significant efforts still have to be done by almost all member countries considering the low data of many sub indicators. However, we do not have to forget this. This was only the first year of the collection. So indeed, we know that the reporting periodicity recommended by the methodology for the SDG to for one is three years. So now we can really make conclusions only at the end of 2020, sorry, or 2022. So now let's move to the results of the dispatch photo. Well, what we have learned, I will call the 2020 dispatching numbers. We have the 106 countries that acknowledge the receipts of the questionnaires, which means, which means the 54%. So a bit more than a half. 86 countries sent the question back, either partially filled or completely filled, which was the 44% 40 countries stated to have data or partial data available, which is the 21%. And among those 23 provided the actual data, which means the 12%. 46 countries stated not having any data. It's 24%. And finally, 40 46 field feedback sections, which is 24%. So below you can find the percentage that we have got for these items in the in the pilot test. So these are the 23 countries that provided actual data. So not just simply stated to have data but provided actual data, based on existing data, based on proxies, based on that anecdotal knowledge, or based on expert judgment. United Kingdom is the only country that managed to provide data on all the 11 subindicators. Denmark and Hungary also were very good and provided data on 10 subindicators. Bahrain, Belarus and Malawi online, and so on. So without reading all of them until of course this group, the last group that managed to provide data on one sub indicator each, which is still very good for us. So many respondents that didn't report any actual data highlighted any way that some data were available, or partial available for some of the subindicators, although they didn't provide any actual value. So probably in the next year, so we will get actual data also from these countries. So there are highlights that I would like to say is that many countries. Sorry that the data may be available for some of the sub indicators in the near future of course. So since the periodicity of reporting the two for one we said it's three years, it's important to highlight that also the countries that did not report any new number in the comprehensive dispatch, but did it in the pilot test. And those countries are Canada, Indonesia, Burkina Faso and Kazakhstan. So these slides illustrate the summary findings of the analysis by subindicators considering only the 40 countries that responded with some data. So with percentage of values, or also that indicated to have data partially or fully available. Or two proxy. So these are the 40 countries that responded this way. So in short, from this chart, it can be seen that subindicators are revela, which subindicators are more challenging to report on, especially in terms of unavailability of data. So in general, the availability is not high. It's not high by compare to the pilot test results or percentage have much more improved. We are going to see these more in detail in the next slide. So specifically, the subindicators prevalence of soy degradation management of pesticides and fias are the least reported. So the ones here visualized. I would like to stress here the importance to respond with any data you have. So at this, at this stage, it is asked to begin reporting with also partial data, or even by using proxies as some country already have done. So you can see in these slides really it's very useful, everything at this starting phase. So first this patch, we see that still percentage of data not available at quite high. I would say it's difficult for the subindicators in the environmental dimension so the five in the middle. This is possible because this kind of information not usually collected in agricultural surface of census, and maybe even if basic data collected the country level. We know that the SDG to for one methodology requires specific and additional information for computation and reporting of the different subindicators so of course we totally understand. So as I said, let's compare the pilot versus the comprehensive dispatch. So in these slides we have tried to give a snapshot of the comparison. So this percentage shown here are an average based on the 11 subindicators reported by the 23 countries for the pilot 23 out of 45 and the 40 out of 195 for the compressive dispatch. So basically in the pilot we have got, as I said, considering all the 11 subindicators 71% of not availability answer with a peak of 87% for fias, and the lowest rate got for the secure tenure right to land with about 57%. So this percentage can be compared here with the 49% of data not available for the dispatch. And so 57% for these three subindicators so prevalence of soil degradation management to pesticide and fias and the lowest rate of 35% for farm out polyurethane and secure tenure right to land. We can easily see how this results evidence evidence and and high improvement in the response rates. Same can be seen for the availability of response let me go down here. So we have 13% as average in the pilot test, compared to the 30% in the dispatch. Same. So a peak of 39 for the pilot, while for the dispatch we had 58. And the lowest rate of 4% in the pilot and 15% for all these three subindicators for the comprehensive patch. So here, big improvements. While little changes I can say we can see for the unclear methodology, almost the same percentage and partial availability and proxies. So all these improvements are surely linked to the three virtual trainings that we have carried out last year, managing to train almost 30 countries, meaning about 300 national stuff. There's several one to one meetings that we have managed to carry out during the whole year. That's why we have also organized this year or the five virtual trainings to try to reach as many countries as possible because we understand that it's very important to train country properly because it's a complicated subindicators. So analyzing the answers given by countries we managed to understand something even more specific about few few indicators, specifically for the three subindicators. So the first one is to take your terro rights to land farm out public actor and risk mitigation mechanism. The data situation is really good, especially for the secure tenure rights to land, which is the most reported subindicator of the comparison dispatch with about 58% of countries that stated to have data available. And this is due to the reason that information on land perium is usually collected using census. In fact, 26 countries that have data available either through actual data or partially available. So many countries stated that they even do not collect data on this to be together because it's, it's the well defined law guarantees that 100% formula have documentation that ensures secure tenure rights to land. For prevalence of soy degradation in many much management of fertilizers are apparently the two subindicators where information is available, but usually partially so nine countries for each of these tools of indicators. And I would say that management of fertilizers is the subindicator where 15% of countries stated to have data available through proxies wage rate of agriculture farm out public actor variation in water availability and the fias are the ones where for the clarity on the methodology is required. And especially would say wage rate in agriculture. We that have been requested by three countries. And finally, we already said this in the previous slide. So these trees of indicators are the list reported. So for each of them 23 countries did not have data to calculate these trees of indicators. So here is visualize the specific over your data availability for your countries for all the elements of indicators. These light of course takes into consideration only the countries sent us back the questioner field. And this is why we have only Maldives and Philippine. And Maldives provided actual data so not only stated to have data but provided actual data on force of indicators. The one the 67 and the nine. While Philippines stated to have data available on to and partial available on other six. I hope that Philippine for this year, they will send also actual data so not only stated to have data don't they don't only will state to have data. So concerning the feedback section. Here we can see in one chart all the questions as the and the answers through the scale from stronger due to strongly disagree. So this session focused on gathering user comments on the quality and the structure of the to for one question. As I said, the previous presentation, and we have got comments and suggestions from 46 countries, especially would say on the clarity of question instructions and definition. We perceive the logic of the questioner structure we wish which were instrumental in identify possible areas of improvement. So we can easily see that question one and question five, where the questions that most countries were in agreement. And this is the same records us that we got in the pilot phase. That in general we have sent the question to the right person, and that no important questions and categories and commodities were missing. While we would say that question six is the question for which countries are more in disagreement, meaning the time required to fill the question and was quite long. But unfortunately, I mean we all know that it's not easy. So comparing the results of the feedback set with the pilot says, we can see that also here the answers are, I mean, here the answers are quite similar. However, is light improvement on all questions is not in so you can see all have raised a little bit. The exception of the question just mentioned about the time and the efforts required to fill the question. And maybe a little bit also the lack of important question category and commodities. But I would say more important that was an evidence, a big improvement of question tree about the clarity of definition. And as I said, probably this is all due to the virtual trainings getting out and to the one to one meetings. We have a head on analyzing the open ended question, we can say that in general the country's finding the gate or two for one methodology challenging and complex and that's even after having gone through the methodology. This is the lack of data availability, and that it is difficult to collect the diverse data needed from different providers. And we already said that for sure calculating this indicator is very demanding in terms of times. Moreover, countries indicated the environmental dimension was the most complicated. And finally, there were some suggestions, so that I had just to have more guidance and assistance, and maybe having clear instruction on how to think the question itself. And that's why we have also improved a little bit the structure of the question is here to make it more clear. And that's why we're so we have again, organize these trainings to help you on understanding better the methodology. About the technical assistance, let me remind you that if country needs assistance, please, you need to send officially the request to us with the FAO country office and the regional office in copy. So this must be really an official request. So on this last slide, we have highlighted some conclusions and steps so although there is the law response rate and the law availability of data. There is a high level of interest from countries to implement the SDG to for one. We definitely understood that all efforts carried out last year on the capacity development activities have been much appreciated and that, of course, there is a need for them. So, looking at the next steps, as already mentioned before we have translated the SDG to for one main material in Arabic Spanish and French, and we are already. We have already translated the remaining docs documents in French and Spanish, and we will soon have them online, and also online the learning course translated in French and Spanish. As one just said, maybe was already online, not yet, but in the coming days, not even one the weeks when you're coming this we will have them online. So we have initiated and we will continue the work stream to explore the possibility of using alternative resources to calculate some of the sub indicators. So in progress we have started this virtual training so you know you are the third group for this year 2021. And we are providing also technical assistance to four countries. So two in Latin American one in Asia and one in Africa. And finally, as I really said we plan to have the second comprehensive dispatch late July the beginning of August 2021. That's all. Any question on this. There is no question in chat box. Participant maybe ask directly by raising their hand. Benjamin. Please, go ahead. Benjamin. Oh, sorry. I need to allow him to talk. He was in that. Okay, can you hear me now. Yeah, go ahead. First of all, thank you to to about Stephanie Tomas also for for having this train. I think this was well that was most needed, and that was well constructed. This is this was really good. I think just a remark in the case of Cambodia. I'm working for a fairway in Cambodia. And, for example, we will have our survey under the 50 by 2030 yearly annual survey in September. If you send the form in August, usually how long do you give countries to to to answer, you know, what, what is the deadline that you will provide for countries to to give to to answer, because the next survey. Sorry, we will have we should we will use the ILP module that that Flapio mentioned, which is the economic one that should help us to answer three of the sub indicators also from last year survey in 2020. We already had the, I think we can compile information on the sub indicator on on the land tenure, because we were measuring five a one. So that should that should allow us also to measure the indicator on land tenure. We also measure the fears also. So, these data should be available very soon it's being tabulated slash analyzed now, but I just want to know how long do you give countries to send the answers back to you over thank you. Do you want to reply or I. So, Benjamin thank you. Thank you for this intervention. I mean, Stefania can reflect more but usually, I mean we, we have adopted this structured process right whereby we send the questionnaire to countries at a certain time in a year so basically for us. It's usually July and August, every year. And then we, we, you know, use standard protocols in terms of the deadlines that we give to countries for them to provide us with the numbers. So this year, we, we are going to be, you know, setting the deadline for for the countries to report back to FAO the 15th of September. So, Stefania that this is what we agreed on right with September. So, so, so, yeah, so, so 10, so 10th of September would be would be the date, the first deadline that we will give two countries for them to report back to us with the numbers. Obviously, this is with the understanding that not many countries would be able to meet this deadline. And hence, we have made this process a bit flexible by by giving you know an extra week or two to countries for them to, for them to reply to us. Of course, I mean, if, if there are exceptions, like say, for example, if there is, there are one or two countries who are really close in terms of them analyzing their numbers, and they request us, you know, in an email that they would need maybe two to three weeks for them to, you know, conduct the analysis and then report back. I mean, we usually accommodate those kinds of exceptions. Okay. Thank you. I think it will be too tight for us anyway, because each service cycle is like, it takes around 10 months, you know, between data cleaning, data analysis and then the tabulation reporting. So, yeah, it just means that, yeah, every, if every cycle you do it in August, I'm just talking in the case of Cambodia, of course. We would be able to report only the data from the previous year, from the previous survey to your yearly request. I mean, this is just a comment for Cambodia, sorry. So just just to add to this as to why we have set the deadline as as the one that I just mentioned in September. Now, as, as part of the reporting processes, because once country report to FAO, we then, you know, carry out this additional process of quality control and validation. So we then usually write back to countries in case we are doubtful about, or we, you know, we want further clarity on certain numbers that the country share with us and that process takes time. Plus, then we share it with the office of the chief statistician, all the information compiled for them to have a look. And once they green signal it, then we have to report it to United Nations statistical division, right at some point. And for that process, we need to have everything prepared, not later than, you know, November or December of each year. So for us to reflect the SDG estimates within the report published by USD, we have to respect, you know, all these deadlines and hence we work backwards from those deadlines and we set accordingly. The time frame using which the country has to report back to us for us to be able to report back to you in a state. Thank you. It makes absolute sense. Thank you so much. I just anyway, Benjamin, we know and we take note and so Cambodia is not the problem that we report the following year. So anyway, this is a regular dispatch so we will send every year so Cambodia will report for the previous year. That's of course, fine. Are there any questions? Any other questions I don't think so. I don't see anything Thomas right. Yeah, correct. There is no question. Let's move forward. Okay. So, I think now it's, we should move forward with the Asphandia presentation on the short medium and long term expectation. And after that we will move we will give the floor to Indonesia. So Asphandia you have the floor. So thank you, Stefania. Thank you once again. I'll be very quick in terms of me delivering this presentation because I think we are really pressed for time we have approximately and one hour right. So, can you confirm if you can see my screen. Yes. Okay, so very quickly. So this presentation summarizes as to what we have discussed until so far. Plus, it goes, you know, into some some details as to how we reach a stage where we are, where we are at now in terms of methodology capacity development and data collection and reporting of SE 241. So, this presentation obviously will cover the progress made by FAO, our planned future course of action and expectation in terms of country readiness to report on the indicator in the short, medium and long term. Our ultimate aim obviously is to maximize country reporting on this indicator, and thereby gradually reclassify it as tier one over time. So in summary, we will cover the following topics. So what progress have you made on the methodological front capacity development front data country data collection and reporting to FAO. So this presentation we will openly discuss the constraints that impede the country efforts to implement the indicator and thereafter data collection and reporting and deliberate the means and ways on how to overcome these these constraints. So by now, you may have a very good idea that indicator 241 is based on form survey. It is used as a main data collection instrument for all seven Decatur's to collect information from agriculture holdings using a nationally representative sample. Reaching at the stage where the methodology is now has been has been a long participatory and consultative process of discussions with experts several rounds of testing and follow up technical work on the development of the methodological So as you can see here I'm not going to go into the details of every point but we have conducted three expert group meetings several round of in fact one online global consultation whereby we shared the methodology with all NS source of the member states 195. And then we organize a couple of webinars with the IEG STG. Then we conducted several round of testing test test in Bangladesh gets the public Ecuador Belgium and Rwanda. We performed cognitive test in Kenya, Mexico and Bangladesh. We feel tested the survey questionnaire in Bangladesh again. And we have also done a selection that we have also tested the FAO data collection questionnaire in 45 countries. Now all the background documents have been finalized and uploaded to FAO STG portal or STG web page, which I showed you in the previous presentation. That is the methodological mode survey questionnaire sampling design any rate and manual calculation procedure FAO data collection question and so on. So everything is on the SDG to for one webpage. Capacity development activities. We have by now trained. We be trained approximately 46 countries in 2019. The indicator was presented several times at different key events, both regional and global in nature. We did bilateral trainings in 2019 for for for for several countries, and then we organized three virtual trainings on the line similar to the one that we are having now for for several countries belonging to different regions. As you can see in 2019. You know, we, we, I was in Chiba, Japan. Okay, and where we organized a physical workshop whereby all these countries some of you were present there as well. I say for example, colleagues from Japan, Indonesia, Fiji, and, and many other countries who are Philippines and others who are represented in this virtual training as well were present in that physical workshop. Back in 2019. Then we organized three virtual trainings last year in 2020 covering several countries Indonesia again was part of was part of this training. Then, you know, and then we organized one for Latin America and one for for African region and and Russia. So this year, sorry, I forgot so this year in 2021 before this virtual training we organized to already one for a square country belonging to Middle East, North Africa, and the second one for for African region. We, we are then gonna after this training, we are planning on conducting two more one for European countries and one for Latin American countries later down this year. Additional activities related to capacity development as I already mentioned the learning courses are already uploaded online so you can you can go there and, you know, take these courses, always a very good resource. The translation of the key documents is, is already taken undertaken in Arabic Spanish and French, apart from English. And as mentioned, we are planning on translating it into Russian and Chinese as well. And then we also take advantage of country missions of other in house colleagues who are traveling to countries for other reasons. And then we provide them with the, with the needed information so that they can raise awareness about the indicator and help us confirm the national focal points with whom we regularly coordinate on the indicator and assess. If time allows the extent of national data availability on the indicator. So, in 2021, as I already mentioned, we continued our virtual training, I made COVID-19, because we cannot physically travel, which is, which is a shame but in any case, this virtual trainings, you know, are successful beyond our expectations. So, as I mentioned, we planned five this year out of which this is the third one, we are left with two others, apart from the bilateral engagements that we are having with countries. We will translate all these documents into including a learning in all six official languages and we are planning on developing digital lectures on the line similar to the one that we are having now. We will help countries, you know, take advantage of those is and when how time allows them to take the course. In terms of data collection, as Stefania mentioned, we have already developed after our data collection questionnaire and reporting protocols. The questionnaire was tested in 45 countries, I'm not going to go into details because Stefania covered it very well. So let me just avoid going into the details. In 2021, I mean, again, we are in process, we are almost we have almost in fact finalized the dispatch to member states, so we are almost ready to send it out. We will do that hopefully towards the end of this month. Then we are of course as I was mentioning we, we, we perform data collection steps, then we do some sort of internal analysis get filling quality, quality insurance and quality control processes. And then finalize it for reporting to NSD, which I was mentioning that we, we have, we are bound by that sort of external deadline and hence we were backwards, setting the deadlines accordingly for us and for the countries in terms of them reporting the data on the indicator. Reporting expectation for 2020, 2020, 2021, we experience low response rates to SC241, which was evident in Stefania's presentation, both for the pilot phase as well as for the comprehensive dispatch. But this was expected, as well as provided us with with an indication that the indicator is complex and in general the country likes on data. So, the short term, you know, expectation is that most of the country will be reporting SC241 using a partial dashboard, which is fine. Instead of like, you know, if countries are not ready. So instead of reporting on all 11 or nothing at all. We provide countries with this flexibility to, to, to provide information between these two extremes. Okay. So if all 11 indicators are available, that's, that's, that's extremely excellent situation. But if data is not available and only on few sub indicators data is available even on one. We, we, we encourage countries to do so, because that's a very good starting point at least they start. They get the ball rolling. Okay. And it's a long term process we will build capacities of the countries as we move on. And, you know, hopefully sooner or later they will be able to report on on all 11 sub indicators that constitute the dashboard of SC241. And I mentioned earlier as part of my previous presentation we are developing solutions around alternative data collection instruments. This will be a practical sort of guideline which will be or a manual, which the countries can can pick and see as to as to what extent their alternative data sources are are SC241 ready. This is obviously to, to focus away, not focus away but to, but to broaden the horizon of SC241 reporting instruments, apart from agriculture survey to include others so that we can enhance and improve reporting. In parallel, we are continuously reaching out to countries. And we are providing them with capacity development support. And obviously in close coordination with 50 by 2030 program and agris survey program to collect analyze detail from level data for SC241 monitoring. So I'm not going to go through the details of this particular site because we already covered as part of my previous presentation. So as I was mentioning, you know, apart from agriculture survey which is which is around which the methodology is currently built. So we are exploring the possibility of country using other data sources apart from agriculture survey. Some are fairly straightforward. Like say for example secure rights to Lantena this this information is, is fairly straightforward to be selected from other data sources, but usually, you know, for other sub indicators we need to have some practical steps outlined already so that countries can collect and report data in a uniform and consistent way. So I'm not going to. Okay, let me just briefly cover this because this is important. In general, alternative data sources usage is not very easy, because these alternative data sources widely due to different objectives, scale of assessment, their scope and definitions. Okay, so remember, you know what we have covered for SC241. Okay, so if the survey has a different objective if it's a household survey, you know that is that used to monitor. Let's say for example, I'm just exemplifying the rural livelihoods in terms of in terms of the commodities that that has accessible to the rural population. The objective of that survey are entirely different from the survey objective of agriculture survey so how do we make sure to use such an information in a fruitful way which is beneficial for SC241 data is, this is complicated. Scale of assessment is another issue. SC241 we are making assessment at agriculture holding level. So keep that in mind scope is another important consideration. We cover in the context of two for one both crops livestock and a mix of both. There are other ways which are primarily focused on crops or livestock. It would be, it would be, you know, a challenge on how to, how to make sure that we make available the missing information on the sector which is not covered as part of the scope of that survey. The resolution and priority of the data set sampling issues, different unit of measurement, association of the results with agriculture land area adjusting and harmonizing different baseline across different countries, integrating data from different sources. Usually it's complicated due to lack of mechanism that is needed for coordination amongst different institutions that are custodian of that particular information at the country level. So several issues need to be considered before we can, before we can use alternative data sources or existing data sources. It's not easy. These are the conditions which I covered already as part of my presentation and what cases you can use alternative data sources for reporting on SC241. So I'm not going to go through this stream of work on alternative data sources I already mentioned we have already kick started working on remote sensing. We will begin working on the other alternative data sources apart from remote sensing. Fairly soon. And then we will be testing and performing some data analysis will draft guidelines and hopefully these guidelines will be available towards the end of this year if not toward the end of this year then from beginning to middle of next year 2022. So with this I came to the end of my presentation but before opening the discussion, let me just tell you about the next steps. So the participants are requested to fill in the stop taking Excel sheet that was shared with you already. This will help us assess the data gaps in your agriculture statistical system with the requirement of SC241. Now, many of the countries who are participants to this training participated in the earlier trainings as well like say for example I exemplified Malaysia. Sorry, Indonesia, Philippines and others. So if you have already filled in the stock taking Excel sheet, we, we would request you to fill it in again and revise your file, you know, your, your, your data accordingly within this stock taking Excel sheet this will help us to see as to whether some improvements have been made since, you know, last time you got trained on the indicator. And plus we, we would like you to prepare a two to three page action plan that details implementation of and reporting on SC241. We would like you to isolate and identify the constraints that inhibit reporting on the entire dashboard currently, and what action will you take and by when for your country to be able to collect data on SC241 and report it back. So these are the couple of action points for you guys soon after this training we will we will send you an email. And we will be following up with you closely on this. Usually we, we, you know, provide or set a deadline of maybe maximum two weeks for countries to report back to us on on on these two activities because this will help this help us plan, you know, our capacity development efforts accordingly going forward at everyone. So this is that I mean Stefania if you if you if you if you want we can we can invite our colleagues from Indonesia to share their experience and then perhaps towards the very end we then I display the very last slide and we open for discussion. Perfect. So, yes, since also we don't have any questions or move forward. So statistics Indonesia will now share their experience in the data collection process sampling issues in compiling the submit indicators and that interpretation. The overall challenges challenges the lesson learned and the way forward. So let me officially thanks to this Indonesia and Mr. Cadill for having accepted to present and share this training their experience. This is precious. For sure for all these encounters. So Indonesia as benefited last year of the virtual training as I said, and this year they wanted to bring the experience here to they must say they work and get also feedback and suggestion from all of you. So here you have the floor. You can share your presentation. Okay, we can see your presentation but you need to unmute yourself. You have the bottom. Yeah, perfect. Yeah, thank you for the floor stephenia. Thank you. Good afternoon everyone Indonesia time. I'm sorry to be short. Yeah. I would like to tame FEO particularly Tom area for opportunity given to us to share our experience in implementing agrees in Indonesia. We have a data collection instrument or tools for to two for one SDG indicator in Indonesia and we're going to share with you our experience in implementing the survey the pilot of this and also the computation of the indicator. This is the result of our presentation. We, I will make a start with explanation about the reason why we choose agrees as data collection tools for computing to four one SDG indicators, and then I will explain a little bit more detail about the pilot project, covering the methodology and dissemination and advocacy that we that we get from FEO and also some issue on computation and limitation in computing two for one SDG indicators, and then I will present some lesson learned from our experience last year in implementing the pilot project and I will close my presentation with explaining our plan for the for future especially this year. Why we choose agrees. You know, as above has already explained to us in his presentation the computation of the two for one SDG indicators, consisting of 11 sub indicators, it needs a wide range of data. That's why when using different data source for different sub indicators is not possible for us for Indonesia. There is a lack of good alternative data source. Actually, there are many data source, particularly collected by other, other institution, different agencies, other than the NSO yet. For example, the ministry of agriculture also produce some administrative data, but the issue is with the quality of the data. Sometimes the concept and definition are not consistent with what we have at initial. So there is a problem with data integration. That's why using different source of data is not possible for us. So, we need kind of an integrated farm survey to to provide us with all information needed for the computation of the indicator. We try to follow a video recommendation in in that regard. As you already know, there is an agricultural integrated survey called I please. So we use this survey as our vehicle, our data collection tools to collect all information needed for the computation of the indicator. So, we use the core module, the module allows us for data collection in one single year, all information needed can be collected in one single year. So, this is the timeline of our pilot project, the pilot project last year, 2020. We start with software preparation. Actually, the survey, agri-survey is something new for us, you know. So all we need in the first time is just downloaded all resources from the website, the handbook, questionnaire, tabulation plan and so on. We fully adopt all of them. Yeah, we do a kind of translation in Bahasa. And then after that, when everything was ready, we then do sampling design and also train our animators for the implementation. And we do the collection in September 2020 last year. Actually, this is this is one of the limitation of our implementation we only come for household sectors. And we use KPI for data collection. So, and then for data processing. Yeah, we do a typical data processing process. Yeah, we do data cleaning and implementation. We compute some SDGs indicators from base SDGs indicators that can be produced from the agris. And during data processing, actually, we developed that kind of a dashboard, a monitoring dashboard website. It is kind of website that we use for monitoring purpose. So, through the website, we can monitor the progress of the survey from time to time. We can monitor some extensive quality data collected by our animators to check the outlier and things like that. And then after data processing, we do reporting and validation. And finally, we disseminate the result last year. So, the application was already available in our website so everyone can access the application. Yeah, about the methodology of the aggregate survey. Actually, we just tried our best to adopt to adopt a real recommendation in terms of methodology. However, because the limitation of our sampling frame. This is the result of our census of agriculture conducted in 2013 as the frame, and the census only covered household sectors. That's why in the statistical unit of our pilot project last year, only covered households sector. As Arbab said, we have to cover also non-agricultural holding, namely agricultural enterprise, agricultural holding other than agricultural households and also agricultural enterprises. But because of the limitation, we didn't cover all of them. About the activities that we covered in our pilot project, because for the sake of data needs of our stakeholders, we not only covers full crops and livestock, we also cover fishery, forestry and also agricultural services. Regarding the sampling frame, because we implemented a kind of multi-stage random sampling method, we have at least three frames here. The first one is the frame for selecting a district or city. So, as I said before, we conducted the pilot project in the three provinces. And from each provinces, in the first step, the first stage we selected some districts or city. We used kind of probability proportional to size systematic sampling, you know, and the size is the total number of agricultural households in each district or city. The source of the frame is, as I said before, the result of our agricultural census in 2013. So the third we select district, in each selected district, we then select, we call it census blocks in Indonesia. The census block actually means enumeration area. In Indonesia, we call it the census block. So we also have a frame for selecting census block from our census of agriculture in 2013. We implemented a kind of PPS and then finally from each selected census block or an enumeration area, we selected households to be enumerated. About the sample size, as I said before, our pilot project was conducted in three provinces, namely West Java, East Java, and Mesnus, and Tangara. And the sample size for a number of districts, we selected 21 districts from all three provinces. And then from selected districts, we selected 129 census blocks and the number of households samples is was 1290 agricultural households. About the level of estimation, the expected result we, as I said before, we only can present the level of estimation only up to provincial level for the three provinces. Yeah, because of the limitation of the design of the survey. And actually, the table is our plan, actually, the table is our plan, as I said before, we just adopt eval recommendation in conducting agricultural field for computing the SDG indicators, not only two for one, actually, we also can compute other fund-based SDG indicators. And we follow this chemo, you know, we combine core and rotating module, there are four rotating module, namely economy module, labor module, production method, and internal module, and the last one is machine equipment and asset. Actually, we just follow eval recommendation in this regard, and this is will be our plan for our data collection system. So, besides conducting census of agriculture every 10 years, between the two censuses, we will conduct agris, we'll conduct agris, the combination of core module and the rotating module. So there is no issue of the discontinuation in providing the two for one indicators in the future by implementing the schema. And regarding the tools for data collection, as I said before, we use KB, we use KB, and at DPS Statistics Indonesia, we have our own KB system, we call it integrated collection system or ICS. This is the display of our KB system developed for the survey. Actually, the application was installed in each animator device, so actually we implemented kind of, maybe you can call it bring your own device. So we developed the application in Android platform, so it can be installed in each animator device. So, besides the KB system, we also developed the monitoring system, as I said before, so the KB system and the website, the two are connected. So we can monitor from time to time the progress of the survey for each provinces, even for each selective district. So we also can monitor the quality to some extent, the quality of the data collected by our animators from this website just for the sake of early warning system and things like that. The two basically are connected. So when our animators feed in all information collected from the household, we can see the progress on the website. About the data collection, advocacy and dissemination. Yeah. Yeah, data collection, as I said before, we use KB, so bring your own device. Data collection tools and an average. Actually, the animation process took quite long. For, for you that already had experience with at least I think is already knew that the question of the survey is quite complex. That's why it needs a long time to complete one question. So based on our experience, it took about three hours to complete one questionnaire. And we do deserve, we did the survey in two months, 60 days per year from September to October 2020. So our each or a field animator assigned for two, for two until up to three innovation area of census blood. About the organization of our data collection, I think this is a typical of organization in data collection or fee. Yeah, we have fewer and admin administrator at head office headquarters in Jakarta, down to provincial office, beside we have fever. And at the center we also have a supervisor and then down to district office. We have supervisor or fewer and administrators also administrator also. And, yeah, and the last one we have a field officer. So, the, the innovation process was conducted by a team. So, a team of enumerators or field enumeration consisted of one field supervisor and one field supervisor supervise three enumerators. And when it comes to advocacy to this opportunity would like to thanks very much to a value for all supports and technical assistance. That have given to us, all of them are very useful for us in implementing the surface, and also in computing some sdc indicators from best sdc indicators, including two for one sdc indicators. Just to mention, last year, as Mr. Abab said, we, we were one of the participants of the training and the training we found the training was very beneficial for us in computing two for one sdc indicators. And also we have, we had some technical assistance from EVO headquarters, Flavio and team, they give, they give us some training on technical issue budgeting sampling strategy and so on, regarding the implementation of the address. We also receive technical assistance from EVO RAP, you know, as you can see, from them we, we had a training on sdc indicator 5A1 and also training on WCA for our, for the implementation of our agricultural census in 2023. As I said before we already published, you disseminate the result of our pilot project. On the screen, you are seeing the first publication we plan to have two publication, the first one was already disseminated this one, the publication presented the result of our analysis computation on the fund-based sdc indicators that resulted from the implementation of the pilot project including the two for one sdc indicators. So the publication is already available in our website. For the second publication maybe in the next two or three months will be ready. Yeah, this is the result for two for one sdc indicators that we produced from our pilot project. So as you can see, around almost 90% of agricultural land uses in the three provinces falls under the standard of productive management to ensure sustainable agriculture. So, I think this, actually the result was quite short for us because maybe this is a strong indication that our agricultural practice is not sustainable. I think we lost to you. Hello Kadir. Okay, I think he had some connectivity problems because it's not online anymore. Yeah, I think so they will rejoin soon. Yes, for sure. In the meantime, if any country has some question, please do not hesitate to write. So as soon as Mr. Kadir finished with the presentation, we can ask him. Yeah, Kadir is back I think. Kadir, are you able to hear me? You are muted. Yes, sir. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, please continue, share your presentation and go ahead. Yeah, but I didn't know the last slide I presented. Maybe you were presenting that almost 90% of your sustainability. Yeah, what is the status of two for one. Yeah, this one before this. Okay. Yeah, okay. Let me say again the screen, sorry. Yeah, please. Yeah, this is the result for two for one SDG indicators that we produce from the implementation of our pilot project. Yeah, around almost 90% of our agricultural and uses in the three provinces falls under the standard of productive management. We ensure sustainable agriculture. Yeah, actually this result was quite shocking for us, because this is a strong indication, maybe this is a strong indication that our agricultural practice in Indonesia is not sustainable but I think we should be careful in interpreting the result. Actually, the challenge for us is how to communicate the result to our stakeholders, for example, the ministry of agriculture. This is a more detailed result breakdown for each sub indicators, the 11 sub indicators as you can see on the screen. The, the unsustainability of our agricultural practice or agricultural and use is associated with the land productivity because almost 90% of land productivity can be considered and not sustainable based on our pilot project in the three provinces. Moving to issue of computation, maybe for this, we need kind of clarification from Mr. Bob. We have some issue regarding the computation the first one related to sub indicator six fertilizer or pollution risk. Yeah. In our case, there were firms that take only one step in reducing environmental risk and based on that we classify them into as an unsustainable group. Like my colleague told me that it seems that we did a misclassification in this in this case, maybe our Bob can clarify about this. And also we have issue for sub indicator seven biodiversity. There were firms that take only also one step in reducing health and environmental risk or health only and environmental only we classify them into acceptable group. Yeah, and for the, the last one for sub indicator nine wage rate in agriculture, instead of using the national minimum wage rate, or agriculture sector with great as a comparison, we use regional provincial minimum wage, which, which is determined by law by the government. We have some limitation we have some limitation in our implementation of the agrees last year. The first one we found that measuring the environmental impacts of agriculture to farmers declaration. Recalling is quite challenging. We found that in general, farmers can cannot assess quantitatively analyze quantitatively soil content or water quality. In our, in, in our view, it implies moving from measuring outcomes or impacts to assessing trends in farming practice based on farmers and memory recalling. And as I said, as I said before, the main limitation of our implementation is we didn't cover non household sector. We're also covered household sector, given a significant portion of agricultural land managed by the non household sector in the three provinces. The indicator that we choose maybe less representative in measuring agricultural sustainability in all these dimensions. And about the lesson learned from the implementation in the implementation last year actually we faced some key challenges ranging from budgeting and so on. In the, in terms of budgeting budget constraint is is a big issue for us. So, as the consequences, our fields animators receive inadequate payment, and also the key challenge also about the questioner, because as you know as as as I already mentioned that the content of this questioner is quite complex and there are many pages there are many questions that should be asked to respond them. This condition creates a kind of respondent burden during the enumeration as I said before, which it took about three hours just to complete one question in our fridge on our fridge. The questions about technology, our system also had some technical issues, especially regarding the internet connection poor internet connection in some areas, and also we found that gadget literacy was a very important issue in conducting enumeration. The pandemic, of course, because of the pandemic, some areas some district impose restriction of movement, lockdown things like that so in many parts face to face interview could not be conducted. And also the challenge related to concept and definition, we found that some concept and their definition. As I said before, we just fully adopted the manual the questioner from FAO, we just downloaded all the materials from FAO website and then do translation into Bahasa, and we found that some concept and definition are not, are not, are not commonly for the Indonesian context. Sometimes our enumerators had some difficulties in understanding the objective of the question on the questioners regarding the materiality. The sampling designs had limitation in depicting the fire in capturing at the picture of us each sector, because we only, we only build a sampling design to estimate at a provincial level. We, we didn't design the the methodology for estimating characteristic for each subsector. So several essential commodities were unselected as adequate samples. Based on those key challenges that we faced last year. We, we, we have, we have some lesson learned the first one regarding budgeting. So we, we conclude that an appropriate payment for enumerators should be required based on the number of questioners completed. And in terms of questionnaire we conclude that there is a strong need for a simplification and also customization based on country specific condition. And then in, in terms of technology, we conclude that our KB system needs to be improved, especially to handle when internet connection is not so good in some areas by. Therefore, ACS have, have to have the ability to temporarily preserve storage and automatically upload any good network condition or information collected from the farmers. Regarding the pandemic. How protocol is very important. So based on our experience, we conclude that we have to relax to be relaxing with the time period of the survey, sometimes you have to extend the implementation of the survey of the survey. And then in terms of concept and definition. So we based on our experience with it, we conclude that sometimes we need to make some adjustment in terms of the choice of the equation. We have to adjust with the condition of the, of the each country specific condition of each country. And then in terms of methodology. So, I think we, it must be a developer carefully, depending on the level of estimation that we want to, that we want to design and also what characteristics that you want to be captured. So the step forward. We based on our implementation that we can, that we can consider successfully. So we want to scale up the implementation of the survey. This year we plan to implement the survey and nation rate. We will come for all provinces in Indonesia. We can't hear you. I'm afraid he lost the connection again. Yeah, I think so. Anyway, that was the last slide. Yeah, maybe you mean time if participant have any questions then they can, because we have other Indonesian colleague who can respond. So participant feel free to ask any question comments or clarifications. Or maybe also a spend them. I don't know if you want to show. Now, is back. Okay, great. Sorry, sorry again, let me resume the last presentation actually. Yeah, I have only two slides. Yeah, as I said before, we will scale up the implementation of our survey to cover nation with all provinces in Indonesia. So we, we will also cover non household sectors, not only agricultural household sector. And the level of estimation will be until up to a district level. So from us. Thank you for your attention and apologies for any technical problems with the internet connection. To you, Stephen, yeah, we are happy to take any question. Yeah, thank you very much, Mr. Cadet this was a very helpful presentation. So it seems for the moment, we ask participants if they have questions, but we didn't get any. A few seconds. And then I think we can move to the next part. So no questions for no questions. Anyway, if they have, we are still here so you can answer later. I think it's time to show the last slide right to open the floor for discussion. Yeah, certainly, but I would like to first answer a couple of questions that the last. Yeah, sure. So can you please display your presentation once again and go back to the slide where you had some issues. Okay, okay. Sorry, sorry. This way the moment. Yeah. So yes, on the, on the very first questions that the firm that only take one step in reducing environmental risk. We classify them into answer salmon that is correct. Okay. So, fewer than. Sorry. Yeah. So we are correct. So fertilizer usage. Yes, I mean, that is that is fine. So if you're taking less than two measures you will be classified as red. So one or zero measure, you know, you are classified as red. Okay. The biodiversity. The diversity or is it fertilizer is this pesticide because I think you know some indicator seven is pesticides, not biodiversity. Yeah, I think so sorry, I think so. This will be. Okay, so this is this is in fact the pesticide indicator. And in this case, let me just elaborate further. So if the, if the holding is taking, you know, fewer than two from each category then it will be classified as red. Okay. So in your question you were saying that, you know, there is another condition which is, which is important right the type of pesticide used first. We need to establish that as to whether these farms are using moderately or slightly hazardous pesticides. So based on that condition, once we establish that, then we then we say if the holding should take at least two measures each from health and environment related. And in this case, yes, if we be acceptable. Oh yeah. But if they are taking one step each, only one step in reducing health environment related risk. So these will be these will be classified as red. Okay, so here the classification is wrong in the first one the classification was correct. And the second one that is wrong. Okay. Yeah, okay. And let me go to the third concern is to stop using the national minimum wage rate or it is the region. Yeah that's fine that that's even better. For the wage rate in any culture, the regional or provincial minimum wage rates is even a better benchmark rather than you know using a national level minimum wage rate. Yeah. So, thank you very much. Yeah, so that is absolutely fine so instead of the one on the pesticides where you, you know the classifications needs to be corrected, it should be moved to read rather than yellow rest, you know, the four seven indicator six and nine. You know it's, it's fine that what you what you have. Okay. Thank you very much for your explanation. Thank you. I think it's time to close so almost all of you have evaluated the training but still few people are missing so this is the time to finish the evaluation if you want. And maybe we can all switch on the, the camera is in the meantime. I'm sorry for the ones that I was not able to promote as the as panelist I imagine it's not possible to, to switch on the camera. I apologize. Omar while I close maybe you want to, to take the picture. So, we have a so in here. So, let me say it's time to close officially this third round of virtual training on SDG 241. I think officially as one day on behalf of all the participants. We have got many messages that you have carried out a training in a perfect way. And thanks to the FAO local offices and to the regional offices in Bacok, especially, Tomar who has helped getting all the nomination and being in constant contact with the different countries to ensure the success of this training. thanks to Statistics Indonesia for having shared the experience and last but maybe more importantly thanks to all of you for having participated to this third round. We hope you have enjoyed it and that we have helped you gain a clear understanding of the methodology of the SDG241 indicator. So in the end in these extraordinary circumstances with the pandemic we managed to train almost 100 participants and these are going to be added to already 300 trained in the first rounds of grid training carried out in 2020 and also about 100 trained last month for the African region. So this is for sure something that would not have been possible to achieve with an in-person training. Please remember that you are more than welcome to contact us anytime through our SDG email account and as promised we will be sending the certificate of the presence or to all participants that were connected for the four days. We will be also sharing the recordings so that you can go through the videos anytime you want. We will be sharing the presentations and also the final report of the training. So this will not be done immediately of course but as soon as it's ready everything ready we will be sharing the report and the certificates probably will go in a while, will come in a while. So I leave the floor to Aspandia for the last words and then I wish you a rest of your day and good night and good evening again. Good morning. So thank you, thank you Stefania for as usual you were excellent in terms of moderating and facilitating this session and in your presentation so thank you very much as always. Thank you Tomar for making yourself available and for all the coordination that you carried out behind the scenes to make this workshop successful. My thanks to Sangita as well who showed willingness and allowing her team members to work with us jointly in making this training session successful. Thank you to Benjamin as well I meant for you are very nice and pertinent points and remarks and updates about Cambodia so thank you very much for that we will be in touch. Thank you to all other FAO colleagues who are who are participant to this training and haven't identified themselves so thank you very much for all your support and your presence and especially thanks to the the country's participants and our esteemed colleagues from national statistical offices and minister of agriculture without whom this training won't be possible so this training was originated based on your request and your presence means a lot to us so mind you we have reached towards the end of this training but this is just the beginning of a new relationship so we have showed you you know all the basic stuff the elementary stuff that you need to know about STD 241 and we want to build on this relationship so we just opened the door for you and we you know it's not that we with this training we are going to wind up and close our windows and close our doors and no we want to engage with you more rigorously we want to engage you with you more intensively to help you implement you know frameworks that matters for you for your own policy making um obviously the basic you know objective or the ultimate objective of agenda 2030 is to leave no one behind and leaving no one behind the the the basic objective for us having this training is not to promote international reporting on STDs that that is a secondary objective the primary objective is for us to support you in making better decisions and policies so that you can improve your agriculture statistical system that in turn will help you improve your policies and decisions through which we can we can then you know achieve the ultimate objective of of eliminating malnutrition and hunger and equitable distribution of food across across across countries and regions and and globally so thank you very much all of you for your patience and your active participation please don't hesitate to write to us we have provided you with our email addresses um all are with you and you know you can you can always call us write to us and talk to us and we will be very happy to accommodate your requests you know on priority basis as and when it rises so thank you very much thank you thank you again tom and i don't know if you want to say a few words as well yeah just uh i want to thank everybody and particularly for indonesia uh for presentation kadi ren team and park kadarmanto as well as feo indonesia office colleague for support Cambodia thailand colleague so uh we will keep in touch so feel free to reach us we know each other very well so thank you take care and set time bye bye bye thank you