Resilience, Conflict Sensitivity and Peace

Additional Information: SDG Indicator No. 1.4.1, Basic Services refer to public service provision systems that meet human basic needs including drinking water, sanitation and hygiene, energy, mobility, waste collection, health care, education and information technologies. Computation Method: Step 1 is getting proportion of population that have access to ALL the basic services mentioned above from primary data sources such as household surveys and census. This step is essential when countries have primary data at the household levels for all the types of basic services. This is then followed by computations of metrics for other components that are not measured at the household level such as access to health, education, transport, etc.  See the https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information (also about the following concepts: Access to basic services, Access to Basic Drinking Water Services, Access to Basic Sanitation Services, Access to Basic Hygiene Facilities, Access to Basic Mobility). NB: The SDG indicator does not foresee disaggregation (as of August 2020).

Additional Information: The World Bank's Country Political and Institutional Assessment includes an annual rating for 'equity of public resource use'. The rating is from 1 (low) to 6 (high). This assessment examines the extent to which the pattern of public expenditures and revenue collection affects the poor and is consistent with national poverty reduction priorities. The assessment focuses on elements which are under the country's control, rather than higher level results (such as economic growth rates) that are influenced by events beyond the country's control.

Additional Information: The World Bank's Country Political and Institutional Assessment includes an annual rating for 'building human resources'. The rating is from 1 (low) to 6 (high). This assessment examines the national policies and public and private sector service delivery that affects the access to and quality of health and education services, including prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. The assessment focuses on elements which are under the country's control, rather than higher level results (such as economic growth rates) that are influenced by events beyond the country's control.

Additional Information: This indicator monitors the level of availability of essential services (e.g., water, sewage, telephone, trash removal, public transportation). The Measuring Progress in Conflict Environments (MPICE) report defines services essential to sustain human life during stability operations (water, sanitation, transportation, medical, etc.).

Additional Information:

The indicator is based on the Measuring Progress in Conflict Environments (MPICE) Framework. What is the level of availability of essential services (e.g., water, sewage, telephone, trash removal, public transportation)?

Additional Information: Please specify the type of services received and target participants in the local context.

Additional Information: SDG Indicator No. 5.6.2: seeks to measure the extent to which countries have national laws and regulations that guarantee full and equal access to women and men aged 15 years and older to sexual and reproductive health care, information and education.  It measures specific legal enablers and barriers for 13 components across four thematic areas (Maternity care services, Contraception and family planning, Comprehensive sexuality education and information, Sexual health and well-being). The indicator is a percentage (%) score from 0 to 100 (national laws and regulations exist to guarantee full and equal access), indicating a country’s status and progress in the existence of such national laws and regulations.  Indicator 5.6.2 measures only the existence of laws and regulations; it does not measure their implementation. Computation Method: The indicator measures specific legal enablers and barriers for 13 components across four thematic areas. The calculation of the indicator requires data for all 13 components, then computation of the total score from those values. The 13 components are placed on the same scale, with 0% being the lowest value and 100% being the most optimal value. Each component is scored independently and weighted equally.  The score for a given component is calculated as: [(Number of enablers that exist / Total number of enablers) – (Number of barriers that exist / Total number of barriers)] *100 See https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information (also for detailed definitions of the following concepts: Laws, Regulations, Restrictions, Plural legal system, "guarantee access").

Additional Information:

SDG Indicator No. 3.7.1, definition: the percentage of women of reproductive age (15-49 years) who desire either to have no (additional) children or to postpone the next child and who are currently using a modern contraceptive method. It is also referred to as the proportion of demand satisfied by modern methods. The components of the indicator are contraceptive prevalence (any method and modern methods) and unmet need for family planning. 
Contraceptive prevalence is the percentage of women who are currently using, or whose sexual partner is currently using, at least one method of contraception, regardless of the method used.
For analytical purposes, contraceptive methods are often classified as either modern or traditional. Modern methods of contraception include female and male sterilization, the intra-uterine device (IUD), the implant, injectables, oral contraceptive pills, male and female condoms, vaginal barrier methods (including the diaphragm, cervical cap and spermicidal foam, jelly, cream and sponge), lactational amenorrhea method (LAM), emergency contraception and other modern methods not reported separately (e.g., the contraceptive patch or vaginal ring). Traditional methods of contraception include rhythm (e.g., fertility awareness-based methods, periodic abstinence), withdrawal and other traditional methods not reported separately.

NB: this SDG indicator does not foresee disaggregation. See https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information.

Additional Information:

SDG Indicator No. 3.1.2: percentage of live births attended by skilled health personnel (doctors, nurses or midwives) trained in providing life-saving obstetric care, including giving the necessary supervision, care and advice to women during pregnancy, childbirth and the postpartum period, to conduct deliveries on their own, and to care for new-borns) during a specified time period.

Method of Computation:  {Number of births attended by skilled health personnel / The total number of live births in the same period } x 100.

See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: Indicator Definition: number of infants who have received three doses of DPT (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis/whooping cough) or three doses of pentavalent vaccine (= DTP + Hepatitis B and Haemophilus influenza type b), by age 1 year with support of the EU-funded intervention  See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Nutrition" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Education" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information:

Please specify in the indicator how "young people" are defined in the given country (or what definition will be followed).

Additional Information: Both formal and non-formal education should be included. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Education" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: SDG Indicator No. 4.2.2: the participation rate in organized learning (one year before the official primary entry age), by sex as defined as the percentage of children in the given age range who participate in one or more organized learning programme, including programmes which offer a combination of education and care. Participation in early childhood and in primary education are both included. The age range will vary by country depending on the official age for entry to primary education. See the https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information, including details on the computation method.

Additional Information: SDG Indicator No. 4.3.1: formal and non-formal education and training can be offered in a variety of settings including schools and universities, workplace environments and others and can have a variety of durations. Administrative data often capture only provision in formal settings such as schools and universities. Participation rates do not capture the intensity or quality of the provision nor the outcomes of the education and training on offer. See the https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information, including details on the computation method.

Additional Information:

SDG Indicator No. 8.6.1: this indicator conveys the proportion of youth (aged 15-24 years) not in education, employment or training (also known as "the youth NEET rate").
The share of youth not in employment, education or training (youth NEET rate) provides a measure of youth who are outside the educational system, not in training and not in employment, and thus serves as a broader measure of potential youth labour market entrants than youth unemployment. It includes discouraged worker youth as well as those who are outside the labour force due to disability and engagement in household chores, among other reasons.
In terms of the analysis of the indicator, in order to avoid misinterpreting it, it is important to bear in mind that it is composed of two different sub-groups (unemployed youth not in education or training and youth outside the labour force not in education or training). The prevalence and composition of each sub-group would have policy implications, and thus, should also be considered when analysing the NEET rate.

Computation method:
Youth NEET rate = ((Unemployed youth + Youth outside the labour force) – (Unemployed youth in education or training + Youth outside the labour force in education or training) )/Youth × 100
Youth simultaneously in employment and education or training should not be double counted when subtracted from the total number of youth.

See the https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information.

Additional Information:

SDG Indicator No. 6.1.1, definition: the Percentage of the population using a basic drinking water source (‘improved’ sources of drinking water used for MDG monitoring i.e. piped water into dwelling, yard or plot; public taps or standpipes; boreholes or tube wells; protected dug wells; protected springs and rainwater) which is located on premises and available when needed and free of faecal (and priority chemical) contamination.

Method of Computation: 
• taking the latest available proportion of population who are using an improved drinking water source for each country
 • multiplying this number by the population for the country in that same year
 • adding together the above numbers for all the countries where the EU has external action programmes. This will give the first element for a weighted proportion of the population using improved drinking water sources
 • adding together the populations of all the countries where the EU has external action programmes for the same year as used above. This will give the second element for a weighted proportion of the population using improved drinking water sources
 • dividing the first element by the second element. This will give the weighted average proportion of population using improved drinking water sources.

See https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information.

See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Nutrition" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information:

SDG Indicator No. 6.2.1a, definition: the Proportion of population using safely managed sanitation services, including a hand-washing facility with soap and water is currently being measured by the proportion of the population using a basic sanitation facility which is not shared with other households and where excreta is safely disposed in situ or treated off-site. ‘Improved’ sanitation facilities include: flush or pour flush toilets to sewer systems, septic tanks or pit latrines, ventilated improved pit latrines, pit latrines with a slab, and composting toilets. Population with a basic handwashing facility: a device to contain, transport or regulate the flow of water to facilitate handwashing with soap and water in the household.

Computation Method: household surveys and censuses provide data on use of types of basic sanitation facilities listed above, as well as the presence of handwashing materials in the home. 

The percentage of the population using safely managed sanitation services is calculated by combining data on the proportion of the population using different types of basic sanitation facilities with estimates of the proportion of faecal waste which is safely disposed in situ or treated off-site. 

The JMP estimates use of basic sanitation facilities for each country, separately in urban and rural areas, by fitting a regression model to a series of data points from household surveys and censuses. This approach was used to report on use of ‘improved sanitation’ facilities for MDG monitoring. The JMP is evaluating the use of alternative statistical estimation methods as more data become available.

The JMP 2017 update and SDG baselines report describes in more detail how estimates of the proportion of household wastewater that is safely disposed of in situ or treated off-site have been combined with data on use of different types of sanitation facilities, as recorded in the JMP global database.

See https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information (also about the following concepts: Improved sanitation facilities, Safely disposed in situ, Treated offsite, handwashing facility).

Additional Information: SDG Indicator No. 6.2.1b. Definition: Percentage of the population using a basic sanitation facility at the household level (‘improved’ sanitation facilities used for MDG monitoring i.e. flush or pour flush toilets to sewer systems, septic tanks or pit latrines, ventilated improved pit latrines, pit latrines with a slab, and composting toilets, the same categories as improved sources of drinking water used for MDG monitoring)  which is not shared with other households and where excreta is safely disposed in situ or treated off-site. Method of Computation:  • taking the latest available percentage for each country  • multiplying this number by the population for the country in that same year  •adding together the above numbers for all the countries . This will give the first element for a weighted proportion of the population using improved sanitation facilities  •adding together the populations of all the countries using the same reference years as above. This will give the second element for a weighted proportion of the population using improved sanitation facilities  •dividing the first element by the second element. This will give the weighted average proportion of the population using improved sanitation facilities. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: SDG Indicator No. 2.2.1: child growth is an internationally accepted outcome reflecting child nutritional status. Child stunting refers to a child who is too short for his or her age and is the result of chronic or recurrent malnutrition. Stunting is a contributing risk factor to child mortality and is also a marker of inequalities in human development. Stunted children fail to reach their physical and cognitive potential. Child stunting is one of the World Health Assembly nutrition target indicators. Survey estimates are based on standardized methodology using the WHO Child Growth Standards (Ref: Anthro software manual). Global and regional estimates are based on methodology outlined in UNICEF-WHO-The World Bank: Joint child malnutrition estimates - Levels and trends (UNICEF/WHO/WB 2012). See https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information.

Additional Information: Based on the Guidance Note which countries receive that helps them conduct the exercise. Available at: http://docs.scalingupnutrition.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2017-Guid…. ‘Specific’ refers to high-impact nutrition actions as described in the 2013 The Lancet nutrition series that address the immediate determinants of foetal and child nutrition and development: adequate food and nutrient intake, feeding, caregiving and parenting practices, and low burden of infectious diseases. These are sometimes referred to as ‘direct’ interventions. ‘Nutrition-specific’ budget items include a nutrition department, programme, intervention or activity depending on the structure of the budget. ‘Sensitive’ refers to actions that address the underlying cause of malnutrition as set out in the UNICEF conceptual framework. They include actions from a range of sectors including: health, agriculture and food systems, water, sanitation and hygiene promotion (WASH), education and social protection. ‘Nutrition sensitive’ budget items need to include a programme that addresses the underlying causes of malnutrition and especially is beneficial to the most vulnerable populations including children and women, and clearly mention a nutrition-relevant objective and/or outcome and/or action as part of an integrated programme or department mandate. Data to calculate this indicator can come from the SUN movement MEAL system although the latter does not directly report on this particular indicator. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Nutrition" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information:

SDG Indicator No. 7.1.1: in many parts of the world, the presence of an electricity connection in the household does not necessarily guarantee that the energy supplied is adequate in quality and reliability or affordable in cost and it would be desirable to have fuller information about these critical attributes of the service, which have been highlighted in SDG7.

See https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information.

Additional Information: Indicator 1.4. of the World Justice Project. Government Powers are Effectively Limited by the Legislature. Measures whether legislative bodies have the ability in practice to exercise effective checks on and oversight of the government. 

Additional Information: The following rating system could be used when answering to the survey/polling data: Rating: percentage of responses based on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: fully agree (4); partly agree (3); disagree (2); strongly disagree (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change percentage over time.

Additional Information:

The UHRI provides easy access to country-specific human rights information emanating from international human rights mechanisms in the United Nations system: the Treaty Bodies, the Special Procedures and the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). 

Additional Information: SDG Indicator No. 16.a.1: the indicator measures the compliance of existing national human rights institutions with the Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions (The Paris Principles), which were adopted by the General Assembly (resolution 48/134) based on the rules of procedure of the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI, formerly the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights or ICC). Accreditation by the GANHRI entails a determination whether the NHRI is compliant, both in law and practice, with the Paris principles, as well as with the General Observations developed by the Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA) of the GAHNRI. Other international standards may also be taken into account by the SCA, including the provisions related to the establishment of national mechanisms in the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment as well as in the International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.  Disaggregation by type of NHRI (Ombudsman, human rights commission, advisory body, research-based institute, etc.) See the https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information.

Additional Information:

Additional Information: If report(s) are produced with support of the EU-funded intervention, this indicator is more appropriate at output level.

Additional Information: SDG Indicator No. 5.2.1: according to the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women (1993), Violence against Women is “Any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life. Violence against women shall be understood to encompass, but not be limited to, the following: Physical, sexual and psychological violence occurring in the family […]”. See here for full definition: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/48/a48r104.htm Computation Method: This indicator calls for breakdown by form of violence and by age group and yields the following for each form of violence or forms of violence: Number of ever-partnered women and girls (aged 15 years and above) who experience physical violence / sexual violence / psychological violence / Any form of physical and/or sexual violence / Any form of physical, sexual and/or psychological violence by a current or former intimate partner in the previous 12 months divided by the number of ever-partnered women and girls (aged 15 years and above) in the population multiplied by 100. See the https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information.

Additional Information: SDG Indicator No. 5.2.2: according to the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women (1993), Violence against Women is “Any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life. Violence against women shall be understood to encompass, but not be limited to, the following: Physical, sexual and psychological violence occurring in the family […]”. See here for full definition: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/48/a48r104.htm Computation Method: Number of women and girls aged 15 years and above who experience sexual violence by persons other than an intimate partner in the previous 12 months divided by the number of women and girls aged 15 years and above in the population multiplied by 100. Disaggregation: In addition to age and place of occurrence, income/wealth, education, ethnicity (including indigenous status), disability status, geographic location, relationship with the perpetrator (including sex of perpetrator) and frequency and type of sexual violence (as proxy to severity) are suggested as desired variables for disaggregation for this indicator. See the https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information.

Additional Information:

Additional Information:

Additional Information: Score for the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index - indicator 4.7 - measures whether people can freely attend community meetings, join political organizations, hold peaceful public demonstrations, sign petitions, and express opinions against government policies and actions without fear of retaliation. 

Additional Information: The indicator assesses the level to which a legal framework ensures the freedom of association without discrimination.

Additional Information: This indicator can follow up on any technical assistance provided by the EU-funded intervention to the government and other stakeholders in developing specific legal provisions - with the aim of seeing whether they are ultimately adopted by the government (as the desired outcome). See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Security Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: It may also be interesting to track the budget that is actually executed (rather than just allocated). Please feel free to adjust the indicator as needed. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Security Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information:

This indicator enables us to see whether an independent oversight body with a security sector mandate exists in the country. It may also be interesting to examine what measures are at the disposal of this independent body (i.e. legal action, recommendations, etc.).

See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Security Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Security Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Security Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Security Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: If the EU-funded intervention will support the development of laws/regulations ensuring that prosecution processes are aligned with international norms, this is an appropriate output-level indicator. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Security Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: The index, which ranks 180 countries and territories by their perceived levels of public sector corruption according to experts and businesspeople, uses a scale of 0 to 100, where 0 is highly corrupt and 100 is very clean. More than two-thirds of countries score below 50 on this year’s CPI, with an average score of just 43.   It reveals that the continued failure of most countries to significantly control corruption is contributing to a crisis in democracy around the world.

Additional Information: Country score according to indicator 1.4 of the World Justice Project World Justice Project: Measures whether government officials in the  executive, legislature, judiciary, and the police are investigated, prosecuted, and punished for official misconduct and other violations. 

Additional Information: This indicator tracks whether the inspections/audits foreseen by the law are being executed. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Security Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: Most barometer surveys will include questions assessing the level of trust in political institutions. For example, the Afrobarometer asks: - How much do you trust each of the following…? President/Parliament/Courts and others - Overall, how satisfied are you with the way democracy works in [x]? Similarly, the Asian Barometer asks: “I’m going to name a number of institutions. For each one, please tell me how much trust do you have in them? Is it a great deal of trust, quite a lot of trust, not very much trust not very much trust, or none at all?” Please pay attention to the periodicity of surveys and publication of results. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Democracy" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: Country score for indicator 1.5 of the World Justice Project: Measures whether an independent media, civil  society organizations, political parties, and individuals are free to report and comment on government  policies without fear of retaliation

Additional Information: This is a sub-indicator of SDG indicator 16.7.1 ("Proportions of positions in national and local public institutions, including (a) the legislatures; (b) the public service; and (c) the judiciary, compared to national distributions, by sex, age, disability status"). This indicator focuses on ‘decision-making’ and the extent to which it is responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative. Please See the SDG metadata website for more detailed information on the concepts, methods of calculations and sources of data (https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/).

Additional Information: This is a sub-indicator of SDG indicator 16.7.1 ("Proportions of positions in national and local public institutions, including (a) the legislatures; (b) the public service; and (c) the judiciary, compared to national distributions, by sex, age, disability status"). This indicator focuses on ‘decision-making’ and the extent to which it is responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative. Please See the SDG metadata website for more detailed information on the concepts, methods of calculations and sources of data (https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/).

Additional Information: This is a sub-indicator of SDG indicator 16.7.1 ("Proportions of positions in national and local public institutions, including (a) the legislatures; (b) the public service; and (c) the judiciary, compared to national distributions, by sex, age, disability status"). This indicator focuses on ‘decision-making’ and the extent to which it is responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative. Please See the SDG metadata website for more detailed information on the concepts, methods of calculations and sources of data (https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/).

Additional Information: This is a sub-indicator of SDG indicator 16.7.1 ("Proportions of positions in national and local public institutions, including (a) the legislatures; (b) the public service; and (c) the judiciary, compared to national distributions, by sex, age, disability status"). This indicator focuses on ‘decision-making’ and the extent to which it is responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative. Please See the SDG metadata website for more detailed information on the concepts, methods of calculations and sources of data (https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/).

Additional Information: This is a sub-indicator of SDG indicator 16.7.1 ("Proportions of positions in national and local public institutions, including (a) the legislatures; (b) the public service; and (c) the judiciary, compared to national distributions, by sex, age, disability status"). This indicator focuses on ‘decision-making’ and the extent to which it is responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative. Please See the SDG metadata website for more detailed information on the concepts, methods of calculations and sources of data (https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/).

Additional Information: This is a sub-indicator of SDG indicator 16.7.1 ("Proportions of positions in national and local public institutions, including (a) the legislatures; (b) the public service; and (c) the judiciary, compared to national distributions, by sex, age, disability status"). This indicator focuses on ‘decision-making’ and the extent to which it is responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative. Please See the SDG metadata website for more detailed information on the concepts, methods of calculations and sources of data (https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/).

Additional Information: SDG Indicator No. 16.7.2. This survey-based indicator measures self-reported levels of ‘external political efficacy’, that is, the extent to which people think that politicians and/or political institutions will listen to, and act on, the opinions of ordinary citizens.  To address both dimensions covered by this indicator, SDG Indicator No. 16.7.2 uses two well-established survey questions, namely: 1) one question measuring the extent to which people feel they have a say in what the government does (focus on inclusive participation in decision-making) and 2) another question measuring the extent to which people feel the political system allows them to have an influence on politics (focus on responsive decision-making). All efforts should be made to disaggregate survey results on these two questions by sex, income level, education level, place of residence (administrative region e.g. province, state, district; urban/rural), disability status, nationally relevant population groups and age. See the SDG metadata website for additional information.

Additional Information: The indicator is inspired by the Peacebuilding and Statebuilding Indicators (www.pbsbdialogue.org / www.newdeal4peace.org)

Additional Information:

Most barometer surveys will include questions assessing the level of trust in political institutions. For example, the Afrobarometer asks:
- How much do you trust each of the following…? President/Parliament/Courts
- Overall, how satisfied are you with the way democracy works in [x]?
Similarly, the Asian Barometer asks:
“I am going to name a number of institutions. For each one, please tell me how much trust do you have in them? Is it a great deal of trust, quite a lot of trust, not very much trust not very much trust, or none at all?”
Please pay attention to the periodicity of surveys and publication of results.

Additional Information: The project will need to conduct at least two surveys in order to obtain data for this indicator. The survey may combine direct questions (i.e. “How do you perceive the overall quality of justice dispensed by the court in your city/village/community?”) with proxy questions (i.e. “If you were wrongly accused of a crime, would you expect to be treated justly by the courts?”, or similar).  Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Justice Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: UN Rule of Law indicators No.43: Whether the courts are perceived by the population to be treating people fairly and impartially regardless of their income, race, national or social origin, gender or religion Question: “To what extent do you agree that courts treat people fairly regardless of their income, race, national or social origin, gender or religion?” Rating: Average score of respondents on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: fully agree (4); partly agree (3); disagree (2); strongly disagree (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Justice Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: This indicator measures if and how many coordination mechanisms exist between public institutions, political parties and civil society. These can be Parliamentary Committee meetings or public hearings, meetings of political parties with CSOs or thematic roundtables with relevant line ministries to discuss draft laws and policies and national actions plans. The indicator provides information on how far a country’s government and its public institutions promote and support consultation with civil society to increase a public administration’s accountability, transparency and legitimacy of decision-making.

Additional Information: Please specify the target public policy sector whenever possible.

Additional Information: EU-funded interventions support CSOs to develop policy proposals and recommendations. This indicator measures how many of these proposals/recommendations were taken on board and approved as laws and policies by relevant public institutions. The indicator provides information on the level of access to decision-makers and influence/advocacy capacity of CSOs in a given country on specific topics. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Democracy" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: This is an indicator that assesses participation in political processes and civic engagement at local level. As explained in the methodological note for the Peacebuilding and Statebuilding Indicator No.1.4 i): it assesses civic engagement and the extent to which people can participate in the political process at the local level and have a say in key decisions that affect their vital interests (www.pbsbdialogue.org / www.newdeal4peace.org).

Additional Information: This indicator measures if there have been any changes to the electoral legal framework in the months immediately (6 months) preceding election day. While this is no requirement under international law, limiting the timeframe for changes can promote legal certainty and predictability in the law. Applying the principle of the rule of law according to the UN definition accepted by the EU, it is required that: 1. The election law is publicly promulgated, 2. The election law is fairly applied, 3. There is procedural and legal transparency in the electoral legal framework and 4. All persons are equal before the law and the law is equally enforced. This includes that the legal framework contains proportionate and appropriate sanctions for a violation of election laws. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Democracy" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: This indicator measures if the EMB is prepared to carry out its legal functions properly. EMBs are the institutional bodies responsible for the management of elections. Their legal framework and ascribed functions depend on the legal framework of the country concerned. They can be Electoral Commissions, Electoral Councils, Electoral Boards etc. and are responsible for managing some or all elements that are essential for the conduct of elections. In order to manage essential elements of the elections, EMBs need to have the staff number and technical capacity and infrastructure and financial resources to be in a position to 1. Determine who is eligible to vote, 2. Receiving and validating the nominations of candidates, 3. Conducting polling, 4. counting the votes and 5. tabulating the votes. These essential elements can be covered by several EMBs. EMBs might also be responsible for direct democracy instruments such as referendums, citizen initiatives and recall of votes. In addition to the essential elements, EMBs can be responsible for issues such as voter registration, boundary delimitation, voter education and information, media monitoring and electoral dispute resolution. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Democracy" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: This indicator measures if the elections if a given country are held regularly, i.e. often enough to ensure that governmental authority continues to reflect the will of the people, as a basis of governmental legitimacy. States determine the permissible interval between elections, considering circumstances under which genuine elections cannot take place, for example because a state of emergency or armed conflict place restrictions on fundamental rights. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Democracy" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information:

This indicator measures the number of fraud claims investigated by competent authorities such as the national Election Commission. It can be different from the number of fraud claims filed with the Election Commission. Therefore, this indicator also provides information on the capacity of the Election Commission to investigate fraud claims.

See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Democracy" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: The following rating system could be used when answering to the survey/polling data: Rating: percentage of responses based on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: fully agree (4); partly agree (3); disagree (2); strongly disagree (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change percentage over time.

Additional Information: Peacebuilding and Statebuilding Indicator No.1.3: this indicator captures the perceptions of the public concerning the environment for political participation. It can be adapted into a quantitative question via a survey, using questions such as: Do citizens feel that there is an equal playing field for all? Does their voting effort deliver free fair and democratic results? See https://www.pbsbdialogue.org/en/ for additional information.

Additional Information:

Additional Information: This indicator will assess whether the media are aware of the risks of electoral violence and engage in a ‘violence free elections’ campaign (before, during and after the voting). Indicator taken from IcSP Manual of Indicators Sector 812 Electoral assistance 12.5. Public Information and awareness actions in preparation for elections: civic education, media sensitisation. 

Additional Information: This indicator will assess whether the media are aware of the risks of electoral violence and engage in a 'violence free elections' campaign for elections without violence (before, during and after the voting). This indicator is included in the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP - https://ec.europa.eu/fpi/what-we-do/instrument-contributing-stability-a…) Manual of Outcome Indicators (https://ec.europa.eu/fpi/sites/fpi/files/manual_of_indicators_annex_0.p…).Sector 12 Intervention type: 12.5 Public information and awareness actions in preparation of elections: civic education, media sensitisation, indicator "Degree to which media engage in a violence free election campaign" 

Additional Information:

SDG Indicator No. 5.5.1: the proportion of seats held by women in (a) national parliaments, currently as at 1 February of reporting year, is currently measured as the number of seats held by women members in single or lower chambers of national parliaments, expressed as a percentage of all occupied seats.
National parliaments can be bicameral or unicameral. This indicator covers the single chamber in unicameral parliaments and the lower chamber in bicameral parliaments. It does not cover the upper chamber of bicameral parliaments. Seats are usually won by members in general parliamentary elections. Seats may also be filled by nomination, appointment, indirect election, rotation of members and by-election.
Seats refer to the number of parliamentary mandates, or the number of members of parliament.
• The number of countries covered varies with suspensions or dissolutions of parliaments. 
• There can be difficulties in obtaining information on by-election results and replacements due to death or resignation. These changes are ad hoc events which are more difficult to keep track of. By-elections, for instance, are often not announced internationally as general elections are.
• The data excludes the numbers and percentages of women in upper chambers of parliament. The information in available on the IPU website at http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm.
• Parliaments vary considerably in their internal workings and procedures, however, generally legislate, oversee government and represent the electorate. In terms of measuring women’s contribution to political decision making, this indicator may not be sufficient because some women may face obstacles in fully and efficiently carrying out their parliamentary mandate.

See the https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information.

Additional Information:

SDG Indicator No. 5.5.1b, definition: the proportion of  positions held by women in local government.
It is expressed as a percentage of elected positions held by women in legislative/ deliberative bodies of local government.
Indicator 5.5.1(b) measures the degree to which gender balance has been achieved in, and women have equal access to, political decision-making in local government. It complements the Indicator 5.5.1(a) on women in national parliaments, and accounts for the representation of women among the millions of members of local governments that influence (or have the potential to influence) the lives of local communities around the world. All tiers of local government are covered by the indicator, consistent with national legal frameworks defining local government.
Concepts: 
Local government is one of the sub-national spheres of government and a result of decentralization, a process of transferring political, fiscal, and administrative powers from the central government to sub-national units of government distributed across the territory of a country to regulate and/or run certain government functions or public services on their own.
Local government officials holding executive positions who are not simultaneously holding a position within the legislative/deliberative body, or who are appointed and not elected, are not considered in this indicator. It is recommended that women’s representation in executive positions, particularly at the level of the head of the executive (such as mayor), is monitored separately at national and global levels, but not as a headline SDG Indicator No.. the indicator refers to representation among members of local government and not the quality of their participation. Countries may therefore consider assessing political participation through national or subnational studies involving qualitative and/or quantitative methods of research. Additional indicators of political participation may also be monitored at national level, such as women’s share among voters and candidates in local elections, to monitor the closing of other gaps on women’s political participation.  Finally, aspects of local governance beyond the formal institutions of local government, such as public administration staff, are not included in the indicator 5.5.1(b), and may be covered by other indicators in the SDG framework, particularly within the Goal 16 on inclusive societies.
Computation method: No. of seats held by women * 100 / Total No. of seats held by women and men.

See the https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information.
 

Additional Information: This indicator monitors the status of any quotas for women in decision-making bodies such as the Parliament, regional/provincial/local councils. This is different from the proportion of seats actually held by women which can be monitored through a different indicator (SDG indicators 5.5.1a and b)

Additional Information:

SDG Indicator No. 5.5.2: this indicator refers to the proportion of females in the total number of persons employed in managerial positions. It is recommended to use two different measures jointly for this indicator: the share of females in (total) management and the share of females in senior and middle management (thus excluding junior management). The joint calculation of these two measures provides information on whether women are more represented in junior management than in senior and middle management, thus pointing to an eventual ceiling for women to access higher-level management positions. In these cases, calculating only the share of women in (total) management would be misleading, in that it would suggest that women hold positions with more decision-making power and responsibilities than they actually do.
This indicator's main limitation is that it does not reflect differences in the levels of responsibility of women in these high- and middle-level positions or the importance of the enterprises and organizations in which they are employed. Its quality is also heavily dependent on the reliability of the employment statistics by occupation at the two-digit level of the ISCO.

See the https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information, particularly on the computation method.

Additional Information: Percentage of men and women who participate together or alone in making decisions about income from rural on-and off-farm enterprises Method of Computation: {Number of men , Number of women who participate in decision making/ Total number of people in population } x 100                                                                         See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture" sector

Additional Information: Developed and piloted by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).  The Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI) measures the empowerment, agency, and inclusion of women in the agriculture sector in five domains: 1. decisions about agricultural production, 2. access to and decision-making power over productive resources, 3. control over use of income, 4. leadership in the community, and 5. time use. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Nutrition" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: This indicator measures the participation of registered voters in the election. The participation rate also provides information on the level of credibility that the population attaches to the democratic process and democratic institutions and also on the level of legitimacy of the elected institutions. I.e. a low voter turnout carries the risk of decreasing the legitimacy and credibility of the elected institutions in the perception of the population. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Democracy" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: This indicator is also based on SDG Indicator No. 5.5.2. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Democracy" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: The level of representation of women and underrepresented groups provides information on their likelihood of being able to place their concerns/priorities on the political agenda of a country’s parliament and government. For more information, please see Mapping and Study on Performance Indicators for EU Support to Political Parties (2014), focus area 6. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Democracy" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information:

The Worldwide Governance Indicators report on six broad dimensions of governance for over 200 countries and territories (Voice & Accountability, Political Stability & Absence of Violence, Government Effectiveness, Regulatory Quality, Rule of Law, Control of Corruption).
The indicator captures perceptions of the extent to which agents have confidence in and abide by the rules of society, and in particular the quality of contract enforcement, property rights, the police, and the courts, as well as the likelihood of crime and violence.
WGI Aggregation Methodology:
Step 1: Individual questions from the underlying data sources are assigned to each of the six aggregate indicators. 
Step 2: Preliminary rescaling of the individual source data to run from 0 to 1.
Step 3: Using an Unobserved Components Model (UCM) to construct a weighted average of the individual indicators for each source.

Additional Information: 2.a) Measures the prevalence of bribery, informal  payments, and other inducements in the delivery  of public services and the enforcement of regulations. It also measures whether government procurement and public works contracts are awarded through an open and competitive bidding process, and whether government officials at various levels of the executive branch refrain from embezzling public funds (source indicator 2.1 of the WJP).  2.b) Measures whether judges and judicial officials refrain from soliciting and accepting bribes to  perform duties or expedite processes, and whether the judiciary and judicial rulings are free of  improper influence by the government, private interests, and criminal organizations (source Indicator 2.2 of the WJP). 2.c) Measures whether police officers and criminal investigators refrain from soliciting and accepting bribes to perform basic police services or to  investigate crimes, and whether government officials in the police and the military are free of improper influence by private interests or criminal organization (source indicator 2.3 of the WJP). 2.d) Measures whether members of the legislature refrain from soliciting or accepting bribes or other inducements in exchange for political favours or favourable votes on legislation (source indicator 2.4 of the WJP).  • World Governance Index (WGI) Control of corruption: http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#home  • FATF recommendations: http://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/recommendations/pdfs/FATF… • IMF Extended Credit Facility (ECF)https://www.imf.org/en/About/Factsheets/Sheets/2016/08/02/21/04/Extende… i) The indicator measures the prevalence of petty corruption based on people’s experience. Also covers people’s experience of bribery in the justice system and with security institutions. ii) Needs to take into account development of an indicator as part of the Busan process. • Care must be taken that this indicator also goes down to the subnational level. • Aid on budget and predictability are critical issues that will be measured as part of the post-Busan indicators and the FOCUS and TRUS indicators.

Additional Information: In addition to helping to assess access to justice, the number of war criminals who are prosecuted can be seen as a proxy of an improved investigative and/or prosecuting capacity and willingness of project stakeholders to identify, notify and address human rights violations in the framework of transitional justice processes. Indicator taken from 2016 IcSP Manual, Sector 11 Transitional Justice. 11.1 Accountability for human rights violations.

Additional Information: UN Rule of Law indicator No.46: whether the rights of victims and defendants are sufficiently protected during criminal court proceedings. Question: “To what extent do you agree that the rights of victims and defendants are sufficiently protected during criminal court proceedings?”. The rights of defendants include, for example, the right to be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him; to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing; to be tried without undue delay; to be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing; and not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt. Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: fully agree (4); partly agree (3); disagree (2); strongly disagree (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Justice Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: UN Rule of Law indicator No.69: equal application of the law by judges. Question: “How likely are judges to impose different punishments for the same type of crime, for example an armed assault, based on the defendant’s or the victim’s personal or ethnic characteristics?” Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: very unlikely (4); somewhat unlikely (3); likely (2); very likely (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Justice Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information:

UN Rule of Law indicator No.49: whether and to what extent indigent defendants receive free legal assistance (both legal advice and legal representation for people without financial means, particularly women) at all stages of criminal and/or civil proceedings against them.
Survey question: How often do indigent people accused of serious crimes actually receive free legal assistance at all stages of proceedings against them?
Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: very often (4); often (3); rarely (2); never (1).
Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time.
NOTE - Applicable for all UN Rule of Law Indicators: these are indicators proposed by the UN for projects/ programmes working in the justice sector; the relevant data collection is carried out by the projects/programmes themselves, based on different data collection methods: public survey, expert survey, document review, or administrative and field data. Thus, it is up to the project/programme to design the appropriate data collection mechanism to gather data on the indicator of interest.

See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Justice Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: Value of state budget allocated to the Ministry of Justice out of the overall State budget. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Justice Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: UN Rule of Law indicator No.50: the quality of the legal representation generally available to defendants during criminal proceeding. Survey question: “How would you rate the legal representation generally available to defendants during criminal proceedings?” Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: very good (4); good (3); poor (2); very poor (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time. NOTES: Expert perception can also be coupled with information on outcomes of such proceedings. This indicator can be expanded to legal representation available to defendants during civil proceedings. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Justice Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators) UN Rule of Law indicator No.50: the quality of the legal representation generally available to defendants during criminal proceeding. Survey question: “How would you rate the legal representation generally available to defendants during criminal proceedings?” Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: very good (4); good (3); poor (2); very poor (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time. NOTES: Expert perception can also be coupled with information on outcomes of such proceedings. This indicator can be expanded to legal representation available to defendants during civil proceedings. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Justice Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information:

See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Security Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: The project should implement a public opinion survey with separate questions on each of the security sector institutions in the country. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Security Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information:

The project should implement a public opinion survey with separate questions on each of the security sector institutions in the country.

See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Security Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: The project should implement a household survey. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Security Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information:

SDG Tier I indicator No.16.3.2 (Indicator conceptually clear, established methodology and standards available and data regularly produced by countries). Possible custodian agency: UNODC
‘Sentenced’ refers to persons subject to criminal proceedings who have received a decision from a competent authority regarding their conviction or acquittal. For the purposes of the indicator, persons who have received a ‘non-final’ decision (such as where a conviction is subject to appeal) are considered to be ‘sentenced’.
Computation Method: The total number of unsentenced persons held in detention divided by the total number of persons held in detention, on a specified date.

See https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information.

Additional Information: World Justice Project indicator°7.1 (People can access & afford civil justice) measures the accessibility and affordability of civil courts, including whether people are aware of available remedies; can access and afford legal advice and representation; and can access the court system without incurring unreasonable encountering unreasonable procedural hurdles, or experiencing physical or linguistic barriers. See also the other potential WJP indicators in the same category (factor 7 on Civil Justice): 7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination: measures whether the civil justice system discriminates in practice based on socio-economic status, gender, ethnicity, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity. 7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption: measures whether the civil justice system is free of bribery and improper influence by private interests. 7.4 Civil justice is free of improper government influence: measures whether the civil justice system is free of improper government or political influence. 7.5 Civil justice is not subject to unreasonable delay: measures whether civil justice proceedings are conducted and judgments are produced in a timely manner without unreasonable delay. 7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced: measures the effectiveness and timeliness of the enforcement of civil justice decisions and judgments in practice. 7.7 Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are accessible, impartial, & effective: measures whether alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (ADRs) are affordable, efficient, enforceable, and free of corruption.

Additional Information: World Justice Project indicator No.8.7 (Due process of the law & rights of the accused) measures whether the basic rights of criminal suspects are respected, including the presumption of innocence and the freedom from arbitrary arrest and unreasonable pre-trial detention. It also measures whether criminal suspects are able to access and challenge evidence used against them, whether they are subject to abusive treatment, and whether they are provided with adequate legal assistance. In addition, it measures whether the basic rights of prisoners are respected once they have been convicted of a crime. See also other WFP indicators under the same category (factor 8 on criminal justice): 8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective: measures whether perpetrators of crimes are effectively apprehended and charged. It also measures whether police, investigators, and prosecutors have adequate resources, are free of corruption, and perform their duties competently. 8.2 Criminal adjudication system is timely & effective: measures whether perpetrators of crimes are effectively prosecuted and punished. It also measures whether criminal judges and other judicial officers are competent and produce speedy decisions. 8.3 Correctional system is effective in reducing criminal behaviour: measures whether correctional institutions are secure, respect prisoners’ rights, and are effective in preventing recidivism. 8.4 Criminal justice system is impartial: measures whether the police and criminal judges are impartial and whether they discriminate in practice based on socio-economic status, gender, ethnicity, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity. 8.5 Criminal justice system is free of corruption: measures whether the police, prosecutors, and judges are free of bribery and improper influence from criminal organizations. 8.6 Criminal justice system is free of improper government influence: measures whether the criminal justice system is independent from government or political influence.

Additional Information: Public perception of how respectful judges and prosecutors are of the rights of defendants and victims. Question: “To what extent do you agree that judges and prosecutors are generally respectful of the rights of defendants and victims?” Rating: Average score of respondents on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: fully agree (4); partly agree (3); disagree (2); strongly disagree (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time.

Additional Information: Public perception of the impartiality of the courts: Whether the courts are perceived by the population to be treating people fairly and impartially regardless of their income, race, national or social origin, gender or religion. Question: “To what extent do you agree that courts treat people fairly regardless of their income, race, national or social origin, gender or religion?” Rating: Average score of respondents on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: fully agree (4); partly agree (3); disagree (2); strongly disagree (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time.  

Additional Information:

Public perception of the public prosecution: Whether the public believes that prosecution decisions are made in a fair, efficient and effective manner.
Question: “Do you agree that the public believes that prosecution decisions are made in a fair, efficient and effective manner?”
Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: fully agree (4); partly agree (3); disagree (2); strongly disagree (1).
Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time.

Additional Information: Ability of the police to prevent people from taking the law into their own hands (e.g., vigilantism, mob violence). Question: “How effective are the police at preventing people from taking the law into their own hands?”  Rating: Average score on a four-point scale corresponding to the four response categories: very effective (4); effective (3); ineffective (2); very ineffective (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time.

Additional Information: Does the police, military forces and intelligence forces respect the international human rights law?  Monitoring this indicator could examine if:  a) Members of military and intelligence services are aware of domestic and international codes of conduct and standards regarding human, political, and civil rights. b) Members of military and intelligence services accept and respect domestic and international codes of conduct and standards regarding human, political, and civil rights. c) Violations of standards regarding human, political, and civil rights are investigated, adjudicated, and sanctioned. d) Citizens perceive the military and intelligence services respect human rights. e) Regional and international oversight mechanisms (e.g., regional human rights courts, UN special rapporteurs) function, and their recommendations are acted upon.

Additional Information: World Justice Project, Indicator No.8.2: Measures whether perpetrators of crimes are effectively prosecuted and punished. It also measures whether criminal judges and other judicial officers are competent and produce speedy decisions. Other useful/alternative indicators can be found at: www.peacewomen.org/security-council/WPS-indicators-and-monitoring.

Additional Information: World Justice Project, Indicator No.8.4: Measures whether the police and criminal judges are impartial and whether they discriminate in practice based on socio-economic status, gender, ethnicity, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

Additional Information: World Justice Project, Indicator No.3.4: Measures whether people are able to bring specific complaints to the government about the provision of public services or the performance of government officers in carrying out their legal duties in practice, and how government officials respond to such complaints.

Additional Information: Changes over time in the percentage of judges who are women. Use the most recent year for which data are available. Note the exact period covered by the available data. Calculate the percentage of women judges of the total number of judges. Report both the number and the percentage. If data exist on different types of judge (or judges in different types of court, e.g., appellate level), please break the data down by type of judge or court. Check also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Justice Sector Reform" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information:

Peacebuilding and Statebuilding Indicator No.3.5: Assesses the effectiveness of the criminal justice spectrum, i.e. how well police investigates crimes, collects evidence, assemble case files etc.
It could also focus on gender-based violence only (agreed UN indicator to measure the implementation of UN Resolution 1325: "% of cases of sexual and gender-based violence referred, investigated and sentenced").

See https://www.pbsbdialogue.org/en/ for additional information.

Additional Information: SDG Indicator No. 16.7.1 was adapted (Tier III).  Security forces should not exclude or discriminate against any particular group. Women should have equal opportunities and be empowered within the security forces (EU Joint communication 2016). The Action should compare the % of women/people with disabilities/ people from different age groups/people of different religions/people of different ethnicity who are employed in the public security sector institutions - with the % of the same groups employed in the public sector in general. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Security Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: World Justice Project, Indicator No.4.2: Measures whether the police inflict physical harm upon criminal suspects during arrest and interrogation, and whether political dissidents or members of the media are subjected to unreasonable searches or to arrest, detention, imprisonment, threats,  abusive treatment, or violence.

Additional Information: As information on actual public spending could be unavailable in some developing countries, the PETS provides the missing information from different tiers of government and frontline service facilities. It focuses on collecting micro-level data on the characteristics of the service facility, the nature of financial flows from facility records, outputs, and accountability arrangements. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: MTEF aims at set up a transparent planning and budget formulation process within which the Cabinet and central agencies establish credible contracts for allocating public resources to their strategic priorities while ensuring overall fiscal discipline. The process entails two main objectives: the first aims at setting fiscal targets, the second aims at allocating resources to strategic priorities within these targets. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information:

Additional Information:

Additional Information:

Additional Information: Whether the population believes that judges are able to make decisions free from direct or indirect interference by Government or politicians Question: “Do you think that judges are able to make decisions without direct or indirect interference by Government or politicians?” Rating: Average score of respondents on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: always able (4); sometimes able (3); rarely able (2); never able (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Justice Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information:

Please use this indicator only to measure the general situation of the legal aid system in the country, rather than the outputs of the EU-funded project (which is monitored at output level). Please add additional criteria of disaggregation if other factors represent a disadvantage in the local context (i.e. ethnic origin, religion). Public data (statistics) on access to justice for vulnerable/marginalized groups may not be collected by the government/courts so the project should be strongly encouraged from the inception phase to report on available data and plans for filling any gaps.

Additional Information:

UN Rule of Law indicators (45): How available are the services of interpreters (e.g. for criminal, civil, administrative procedures)
Survey question: “How would you rate the availability of interpreters to assist victims and defendants during criminal proceedings?”
Rating: Average score of all relevant experts on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: very good (4); good (3); poor (2); very poor (1).
Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time.
Note: A supplementary question is asked to help determine whether interpreters are available to only one of these groups. Please consider/check availability and quality of prison records/statistics (e.g. completeness, accuracy, quality control, timeliness, etc) to judge whether it's appropriate to use for monitoring purposes. 

Additional Information:

Additional Information:

Additional Information: See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Countering Violent Extremism" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: 2011 evaluation : I-10 “Security Apparatus Operates as a "State Within a State" - Emergence of elite or praetorian guards that operate with impunity - Emergence of state-sponsored or state-supported private militias that terrorize political opponents, suspected "enemies," or civilians seen to be sympathetic to the opposition - Emergence of an "army within an army" that serves the interests of the dominant military or political clique - Emergence of rival militias, guerrilla forces or private armies in an armed struggle or protracted violent campaigns against state security forces. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Security Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: Local security services can mediate the resolution of disputes and ensure property security (from theft/vandalism/misuse) and human security. An external analysis will need to be commissioned by the project in order to assess the existence, capacities and mandate of such local structures in the target area. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Security Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: An analysis will need to be commissioned by the project in order to determine to what extent CSOs are able to contribute to effective dialogue with central authorities and security actors. The analysis may also examine what factors are affecting the effectiveness of this dialogue (other than the CSOs' capacity) and recommend actions to be taken by the project during implementation. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Security Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: The following rating system could be used when answering to the survey/polling data: Rating: Average score of respondents on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: fully agree (4); partly agree (3); disagree (2); strongly disagree (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time.

Additional Information:

Additional Information: See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Forced Displacement" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: If the EU-funded intervention aims to shift public attitudes towards forcibly displaced persons, direct and proxy questions could be combined in a survey of host/resident communities. The survey should be conducted at least twice, at the beginning and at the end of the Action, to enable the evaluation of results. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Forced Displacement" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: Peacebuilding and Statebuilding Indicator No.2.2: estimates the number of people fleeing a country due to fear of persecution and the number of Internally Displaced People (IDPs) within a country, as a proportion of the total population, disaggregated by sex, region and social group. See https://www.pbsbdialogue.org/en/ for additional information

Additional Information: See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture" and the "Nutrition" sectors (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information:

Adapted from SDG Indicator No. 11.1.1.

See the SDG metadata website for additional information, particularly with reference to the definition of slums, informal settlements, inadequate housing.

See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Forced Displacement" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: a) An additive index using indicators of freedom of movement, freedom of speech, workers’ rights, political participation, and freedom of religion (source PPI, data source CIRI) b) Measures the extent and severity of grievances between groups in society, including religious, ethnic, sectarian and political discrimination and division (source PPI, data source Fund for Peace). c) The Gender Inequality Index (GII) reflects women’s disadvantage in three dimensions: reproductive health, empowerment and the labour market (source PPI, data source UNDP HDI). 

Additional Information:

The World Bank's Country Political and Institutional Assessment includes an annual 'gender equality rating'. The rating is from 1 (low) to 6 (high). This assessment examines  the extent to which the country has installed institutions and programs to enforce laws and policies that promote equal access for men and women in education, health, the economy, and protection under law. The assessment focuses on elements which are under the country's control, rather than higher level results (such as economic growth rates) that are influenced by events beyond the country's control.

Additional Information: Taken from the 2016 Manual on the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP). Cross-cutting theme 1: Mainstreaming gender equality, Type of intervention CC1.3. Inclusion of women and youth in society. Representation (in percentage) of women and youth (boys and girls) in different social decision-making roles. 

Additional Information: WJP Indicator No.4.1: measures whether individuals are free from discrimination — based  on socio-economic status, gender, ethnicity, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity — with respect to public services, employment, court proceedings, and the justice system

Additional Information: WJP Indicator No.7.2: measures whether the civil justice system  discriminates in practice based  on socio-economic status, gender, ethnicity, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity

Additional Information:

Based on the Measuring Progress in Conflict Environments (MPICE) Framework.

Additional Information:

Based on the Measuring Progress in Conflict Environments (MPICE) Framework.

Additional Information:

SDG Indicator No. 10.3.1: this indicator measures how many persons have filed a complaint or responded in surveys that they feel discriminated against as compared to the total population of a country. This indicator can also be analysed in relation to the percentage of underrepresented/disadvantaged groups (women, ethnic minorities, LGBTQI, disabled persons, refugees/asylum seekers etc.).
Questions: a first question about the respondent’s experience over the last 5 years, and a second question about the last 12 months:
• Question 1: In [COUNTRY], do you feel that you personally experienced any form of discrimination or harassment during the last 5 years, namely since [YEAR OF INTERVIEW MINUS 5] (or since you have been in the country), on the following grounds?
• Question 2: In [COUNTRY], do you feel that you  personally experienced any form of discrimination or harassment during the past 12 months, namely since [MONTH OF INTERVIEW] [YEAR OF INTERVIEW MINUS 1], on any of these grounds?

See the https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information.
 

Additional Information: The indicator is taken from Measuring Progress in Conflict Environment-MPICE, a metric framework.

Additional Information: Please make the indicator more specific in line with the local context and data needs.

Additional Information: Please make the indicator more specific in line with the local context and data needs.

Additional Information:

Additional Information:

The OECD characterises fragility as the combination of exposure to risk and insufficient coping capacity of the state, system and/or communities to manage, absorb or mitigate those risks. Fragility can lead to negative outcomes including violence, the breakdown of institutions, displacement, humanitarian crises or other emergencies. The approach is based on the five dimensions deemed most relevant for measuring and identifying fragility: economic, environmental, political, security and societal. Each dimension is evaluated according to a number of indicators that measure the most important facets of risks and coping capacities relevant to fragility. The overall value or disaggregated values for one of the dimensions can be looked at, depending on needs. 
The economic dimension aims to capture the vulnerability to risks stemming from the weaknesses in economic foundations and human capital including macroeconomic shocks, unequal growth, high youth unemployment, etc. Countries are assessed using a scale of 1 (severe fragility) to 5 (minor fragility). See the OECD States of Fragility report for additional information and links to country data: www.oecd.org/dac/conflict-fragility-resilience/listofstateoffragilityreports.htm.

Additional Information: The World Bank's Country Political and Institutional Assessment includes an annual rating for the 'economic management cluster average'. The rating is from 1 (low) to 6 (high). This assessment examines the extent to which a country's policy and institutional framework supports sustainable growth and poverty reduction (including macroeconomic management, fiscal policy, and debt policy - individual CPIA indicators are also available for each of these aspects). The assessment focuses on elements which are under the country's control, rather than higher level results (such as economic growth rates) that are influenced by events beyond the country's control.

Additional Information: Information on 25 countries available only. There is also more detailed information by sectors/firm size which could be useful to monitor depending on the intervention – see ITC website for more details. Please see the regularity of reporting for you country before using this indicator. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Business Environment Reform" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: This indicator, by focussing on the number of new businesses/start-ups created with support of the EU-funded intervention, aims at assessing the creation of income opportunities through self-employment (rather than employment by a third party). See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Security Sector Reform / Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: This indicator is connected with SDG target 8.5 By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men, including for young. Several intervention aim at providing sources of employment and income. This indicator identifies employment opportunities directly created by an EU-funded intervention. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators) Possible match with EU RF 2.11

Additional Information:

Specifying a particular reform stream or measure would make this indicator easier to monitor.

See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Business Environment Reform" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: Total amount of financial services obtained (received) by direct or indirect beneficiaries - firms - as a result of an intervention from financial institutions as reported by the beneficiary. This may also be used at output level depending on whether finance is provided directly or through an intermediary. At HQ level, disaggregate by EU financial instruments (e.g. ESFD etc.). See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Business Environment Reform" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: Doing Business takes account both collateral rules and credit information. Only firms in the largest city of the economy is considered, please see here [link to http://www.doingbusiness.org/Methodology/Getting-Credit] for further information. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Business Environment Reform" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: If planning to use the World Bank Enterprise Survey information, please See the availability and frequency of the surveys to assess suitable for monitoring purpose. If planning your own enterprise survey as part of the intervention, given the complexity and costs of such surveys, please consider whether this option is viable (e.g. costs/capacity, etc.)  before using this indicator. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Business Environment Reform" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: At HQ level, disaggregate by EU financial instruments (e.g. EFSD etc.). The indicator may also be used at output level depending on whether finance is provided directly or through an intermediary.    See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Business Environment Reform" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information:

SDG Indicator No. 16.5.2: proportion of firms asked for a gift or informal payment when meeting with tax officials. In every Enterprise Survey (www.enterprisesurveys.org), there is a standard question which asks the survey respondent if they were inspected by or required to meet with tax officials. If the respondent indicates ‘yes’, then there is a follow-up question which asks if the respondent was expected to provide a gift or an informal payment during these inspections/meetings. The response options include “yes”, “no”, “don’t know”, and “refuse”.

Enterprise Surveys are firm-level surveys conducted in World Bank client countries. The survey focuses on various aspects of the business environment as well as firm’s outcome measures such as annual sales, productivity, etc. The surveys are conducted via face-to-face interviews with the top manager or business owner. For each country, the survey is conducted approximately every 4-5 years.
Limitation: the surveys are done mostly in World Bank client countries and hence most high-income countries are not covered by the surveys (US, Canada, Western European countries, Japan, GCC countries, etc.).

See https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information.

Additional Information: The strength of economic conditions as well as the formal institutions that support the operation of the private sector. Business competitiveness and economic productivity are both associated with the most peaceful countries. a) Measures a country’s entrepreneurial environment, its business infrastructure, barriers to innovation, and labour market flexibility (source PPI, data source: Legatum Institute). b) Measures individual freedoms and protection of freedoms to work, produce, consume, and invest unconstrained by the state (source PPI, data source Heritage Foundation) c) GDP per capita (source PPI, data source World Bank) The Unit of measure is a country score.

Additional Information: SDG Indicator No. 9.3.1: Small-scale industrial enterprises, in the SDG framework also called “small-scale industries”, defined here for the purpose of statistical data collection and compilation refer to statistical units, generally enterprises, engaged in production of goods and services for market below a designated size class. Proportion of “small-scale industries” in total industry value added represents an indicator calculating the share of manufacturing value added of small-scale manufacturing enterprises in the total manufacturing value added. The definition of size class in many countries is tied up with the legal and policy framework of the country. It has implications on registration procedure, taxation and different waivers aimed to promote “small-scale industries”. Therefore, countries may agree on a common size class for compilation purposes. In this context, UNIDO proposes that all countries compile the employment and value added data by a size class of “small-scale industries” as with less than 20 persons employed. From such data, an internationally comparable data on the share of “small-scale industries” in total could be derived. Computation Method: [(Manufacturing value added of "small-scale industries / Total manufacturing value added) * 100] See the https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information.

Additional Information:

SDG Indicator No. 2.3.2: the indicator measures income from on-farm production activities, which is related to the production of food and agricultural products. This includes income from crop production, livestock production, fisheries and aquaculture production, and from forestry production. 
The indicator is computed as annual income. 
FAO proposes to define small-scale food producers as producers who: 
• operate an amount of land falling in the first two quintiles (the bottom 40 percent) of the cumulative distribution of land size at national level (measured in hectares); and 
• operate a number of livestock falling in the first two quintiles (the bottom 40 percent) of the cumulative distribution of the number of livestock per production unit at national level (measured in Tropical Livestock Units – TLUs); and 
• obtain an annual economic revenue from agricultural activities falling in the first two quintiles (the bottom 40 percent) of the cumulative distribution of economic revenues from agricultural activities per production unit at national level (measured in Purchasing Power Parity Dollars) not exceeding 34,387 Purchasing Power Parity Dollars.

The overall SDG Target 2.3 requires specific focus on women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists and fishers. For this reason, the indicator must be disaggregated by sex, type of enterprise and by community of reference.

See the https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information, including for the computation method.

Additional Information: WJP Indicator No.4.8: it measures the effective enforcement of fundamental labour rights, including freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining, the absence of discrimination with respect to employment, and freedom from forced labour and child labour. You can also consider using the SDG indicator 8.8.2: Level of national compliance with labour rights (freedom of association and collective bargaining) based on International Labour Organization (ILO) textual sources and national legislation, by sex and migrant status 

Additional Information: This indicator conveys the average number of labour inspectors per 10,000 employed persons, which provides some indication of the resources available for monitoring and enforncing appropriate work conditions and the corresponding standards. Labour inspectors are public officials or other authorities who are responsible for three key labour inspection activities: a) securing the enforcement of the legal provisions relating to conditions of work and the protection of workers while engaged in their work, such as provisions relating to hours, wages, safety, health and welfare, the employment of children and young persons, and other connected matters, in so far as such provisions are enforceable by labour inspectors; b) supplying technical information and advice to employers and workers concerning the most effective means of complying with the legal provisions; c) bringing to the notice of the competent authority defects or abuses not specifically covered by existing legal provisions. Labour inspectors have the authority to initiate processes that may lead to legal action.

Additional Information: Please check data availability for the given country before using the indicator. This indicator conveys the rate of non-fatal and fatal occupational injuries per 100'000 workers in the reference group. An occupational injury is defined as any personal injury, disease or death resulting from an occupational accident; an occupational injury is therefore distinct from an occupational disease, which is a disease contracted as a result of an exposure over a period of time to risk factors arising from work activity. An occupational accident is an unexpected and unplanned occurrence, including acts of violence, arising out of or in connection with work which results in one or more workers incurring a personal injury, disease or death. A case of occupational injury is the case of one worker incurring an occupational injury as a result of one occupational accident. An occupational injury could be fatal (as a result of occupational accidents and where death occurred within one year of the day of the accident) or non-fatal with lost work time. The workers in the particular group under consideration and covered by the source of the statistics of occupational injuries are known as the workers in the reference group. In the case of a notification system, it is the number of workers in, for example, the establishments or selected economic activities covered by the system as set out in the relevant legislation or regulations. 

Additional Information: SDG Indicator No. 8.b.1. Computation Method: The information and documents provided by national authorities will be analysed by the ILO by making use of the grid hereafter: • Missing value = No information available to assess the existence of a national strategy for youth employment. • 0 = The country has not developed any national strategy for youth employment or taken steps to develop or adopt one. • 1 = The country is in the process of developing a national strategy for youth employment.   • 2 = The country has developed and adopted a national strategy for youth employment • 3 = The country has operationalised a national strategy for youth employment. The following steps are followed in developing the indicator methodology:   1. Examination of relevant policy instruments, including the above-mentioned Call for action and Global Jobs Pact. Adopted by ILO tripartite constituents, these documents provide a sound framework for defining SDG Indicator No. 8.b.1. 2. Review of ILO databases on employment and youth employment policies (EmPOL and YouthPOL), maintained by the Employment Policy Department.  3. A methodology for defining, measuring and validating this indicator (the present document). 4. Development of a survey instrument (questionnaire) to collect national-level information on youth employment policies from national entities. The information will be used to determine if countries have developed and operationalized a national strategy for youth employment as a stand-alone strategy or as part of a national employment or sectoral strategy, in line with the above-mentioned ILC resolutions.   5. Technical guidelines for data providers and compilers, along with the above-mentioned questionnaire and detailed notes. 6. Pilot the methodology in selected countries. See the https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information.

Additional Information: SDGIndicator 5.a.2 looks at the extent to which the legal framework (including customary law) guarantees women’s equal rights to land ownership and/or control.     The indicator assesses the level to which a country’s legal framework supports women’s land rights, by testing that framework against six proxies drawn from international law and internationally accepted good practices , in particular the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) ratified by 189 countries, and the Voluntary Guidelines for the Responsible Governance of the Tenure of Land Fisheries and Forestry (VGGT) endorsed unanimously by Committee of Food Security (CFS) members in 2012.    The six proxies through which indicator 5.a.2 is monitored are the following: Proxy A:  Joint registration of land compulsory or encouraged through economic incentives; Proxy B:  Compulsory spousal consent for land transactions; Proxy C: Women’s and girls’ equal inheritance rights; Proxy D: Allocation of financial resources to increase women’s ownership and control over land; Proxy E: In legal systems that recognise customary land tenure, existence of explicit protection of the land rights of women; Proxy F: Mandatory quotas for women’s participation in land management and administration institutions.  See https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information.

Additional Information: SDG Indicator No. 1.4.2: the indicator measures the relevant part of Target 1.4 (ensure men and women have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to …, ownership of and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources). It measures the results of policies that aim to strengthen tenure security for all, including women and other vulnerable groups. It covers (a) all types of land use (such as residential, commercial, agricultural, forestry, grazing, wetlands based on standard land-use classification) in both rural and urban areas; and (b) all land tenure types as recognized at the country level, such as freehold, leasehold, public land, customary land. An individual can hold land in his/her own name, jointly with other individuals, as a member of a household, or collectively as member of group , cooperative or other type of association.  Computation Method: Indicator 1.4.2 is composed of two parts: (A) measures the incidence of adults with legally recognized documentation over land among the total adult population; while (B) focuses on the incidence of adults who report having perceived secure rights to land among the adult population. Part (A) and part (B) provide two complementary data sets on security of tenure rights, needed for measuring the indicator.  Indicator 1.4.2 = 0.5*Part(A) + 0.5*Part(B) See https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information., also on the definition of the following concepts: tenure, tenure typology, land governance, secure tenure rights, legally recognized documentation, perceived security of tenure.

Additional Information: The indicator refers to the percentage of the total targetted number of hectares where, thanks to initial support from the EU-funded intervention, farmers have adopted sustainable land management practices aimed at reverting soil erosion, enhancing fertility, increasing biodiversity, improving water management or reducing chemical inputs. Since this indicator is at outcome level, the monitoring must focus on the land owned by farmers targetted by the intervention, to see whether they are continuing to follow the sustainable land management practices once the EU-funded support has ended. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators) Possible match with EU RF 2.23 ("with EU support")

Additional Information: SDG Indicator No. 2.4.1: it is necessary to consult the SDG metadata website for important and detailed information about the different concepts used and the computation method. The indicator implies the need to measure both the extent of land under productive and sustainable agriculture (the numerator), as well as the extent of land area under agriculture (the denominator). The numerator captures the three dimensions of sustainable production: environmental, economic and social. It corresponds to agricultural area of the farms that satisfy sub-indicators selected across all three dimensions. The denominator is agricultural land area managed by agricultural holdings, defined as the sum of agricultural area utilized by agricultural holdings that are owned (excluding rented-out), rented-in, leased, sharecropped or borrowed. State or communal land used by farm holdings is not included. Please see the methodological document prepared by FAO for a more detailed explanation. Indicator 2.4.1 focuses on agricultural land, and therefore primarily on land that is used to grow crops and raise livestock. This choice of scope is fully consistent with the intended use of a country’s agricultural area as the denominator of the aggregate indicator. Included within the scope: • Both intensive and extensive production systems (including intensive livestock production). • Subsistence agriculture. • State and common land when used exclusively and managed by the holding. • Food and non-food crops and livestock products (example crops such as tobacco, cotton, and livestock raised for non-food products like sheep for wool).  • Crops grown for fodder or for energy purposes. • Agro-forestry (trees on the farm). • Aquaculture, to the extent that it takes place within the agricultural area. For example, rice-fish farming and similar systems.  Excluded from the scope: state and common land not used exclusively by the agriculture holding, nomadic pastoralism, production from gardens and backyards. Production from hobby farms, holdings focusing exclusively on aquaculture, forest and other wooded lands, when not part of an agricultural holding, food harvested from the wild. Disaggregation: Indicator 2.4.1 is expected to be collected through farm surveys and the result expressed as a national value. However, the methodology is scale independent and can be adopted at any geographical level. In addition the indicator can be disaggregated according to type of farming system (crop, livestock or mixed) and other characteristics of the farm e.g. size, or gender of the farm holder. See the https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information.

Additional Information:

Indicator Definition: Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA) is an approach that helps to guide actions needed to transform and reorient agricultural systems to effectively support development and ensure food security in a changing climate. CSA is not a set of practices that can be universally applied, but rather an approach that involves different elements embedded in local contexts. CSA relates to actions both on-farm and beyond the farm, and incorporates technologies, policies, institutions and investment. Different elements of climate-smart agricultural systems include:  Management of farms, crops, livestock, aquaculture and capture fisheries to balance near-term food security and livelihoods needs with priorities for adaptation and mitigation. Ecosystem and landscape management to conserve ecosystem services that are important for food security, agricultural development, adaptation and mitigation. Services for farmers and land managers to enable better management of climate risks/impacts and mitigation actions. Changes in the wider food system including demand-side measures and value chain interventions that enhance the benefits of CSA. (Source : FAO). According to FAO, Conservation Agriculture (CA) is an approach to managing agro-ecosystems for improved and sustained productivity, increased profits and food security while preserving and enhancing the resource base and the environment. CA is characterized by three linked principles, namely:
1) Continuous minimum mechanical soil disturbance
2) Permanent organic soil cover
3) Diversification of crop species grown in sequences and/or associations.  
This indicator measures the number and proportion of  small scale farmers practicing different forms of sustainable agriculture.

Method of Computation: {Number of small scale farmers adopting CSA / Total number of small scale farmers} x 100.

Possible match with EU RF 2.3. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators). 

Additional Information: Rangelands are those lands on which the native vegetation (climax or natural potential plant community) is predominantly grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or shrubs suitable for grazing or browsing use. Method of computation:  Sum of total area in hectares (ha) rehabilitated and managed using improved practices. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: Agroforestry is a collective name for land-use systems and technologies where woody perennials (trees, shrubs, palms, bamboos, etc.) are deliberately used on the same land-management units as agricultural crops and/or animals, in some form of spatial arrangement or temporal sequence. In agroforestry systems there are both ecological and economical interactions between the different components. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: (Apparent) consumption per head of wood and products derived from wood is calculated according to the formula: AC per head = [AC(SW)* RWEc + AC(WBP)* RWEc + AC(Paper and board)*RWEc + AC(Fuelwood) + R (Other Industrial Roundwood)] / Total population (in corresponding year) AC (Apparent consumption) = production + imports – exports R = Removal SW = Sawnwood WBP = Wood-based Panels RWEc = roundwood equivalent coefficient The default values of the RWEc are for: SW = 1.89 RWE / m³, WBP = 1.64 RWE / m³, Paper and board = 3.60 RWE / mt The (apparent) consumption is expressed in m³ roundwood equivalent. A m³ roundwood equivalent expresses the amount of roundwood needed to produce a m³ of a certain wood product. By expressing consumption in m³ roundwood equivalents, volumes of products with different properties such as sawnwood and panels or different measurement units such as m³ (sawnwood) and (metric) tonne (mt) (paper and board) can be summed together. In addition, by expressing the (apparent) consumption in m³ roundwood equivalents the relationship between the volume of roundwood consumed and the removals from the forest can be expressed.  For additional inspiration, please see FAO's Forestry Policy and Institutions Working Paper 37 on "Using criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management", available at www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/32f5155c-8f73-4114-9669-8d4b21d6972a (especially Annex 1).

Additional Information: *please adapt/delete as appropriate, and be as specific  as possible on the policy/framework, etc. the intervention is supporting, e.g. named regulation on construction permit Please do not use binary yes/no, existing/non-existing - be specific on the expected goal/milestone, e.g. plans developed in consultation with all relevant stakeholders, with timelines and roles and responsibilities , and progress to be monitored by lead institution, etc. Indicator adjusted from the ICR Diagnostic Toolkit (2018). See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Business Environment Reform" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: The term technology needs to be defined and could include a change in practices compared to those currently used (e.g. seed preparation, planting time, feeding schedule, feeding ingredients, post-harvest, storage, processing, etc.) (depending on the EU-funded intervention's context). See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Nutrition" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: Sustainable land management practices encompass a vast array of agricultural techniques. Although non exhaustive, the main practices to be considered are:  • Rational use of mineral fertilisers • Integrated pest management • Improved soil organic matter •Grassland development, improvement and rehabilitation •Management of crop rotation  • Cultivation of green cover crops •Rainwater harvesting • Irrigation •Agroforestry (land-use systems and practices where woody perennials are deliberately integrated with crops and/or animals on the same land management unit). • Conservation agriculture (combination of minimum mechanical soil disturbance, managing the top soil to create a permanent organic soil cover, and crop rotation with more than two crop species).  See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Nutrition" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators) Possible match with EU RF 2.23

Additional Information:

Additional Information:

Additional Information: SDG Indicator No. 5.a.1 (a) measures the prevalence of people in the agricultural population with ownership or tenure rights over agricultural land, disaggregated by sex. Computation Method: {Total agricultural population with: Legally recognized document on agricultural land OR the right to sell it OR the right to bequeath it / Total agricultural population} * 100 by sex See https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information, in particular with reference to the concepts of: agricultural land, agricultural population, ownership and tenure rights over agricultural land.

Additional Information:

SDG Indicator No. 15.1.2: this indicator shows temporal trends in the mean percentage of each important site for terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity (i.e., those that contribute significantly to the global persistence of biodiversity) that is covered by designated protected areas.

See https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information.

Possible match with EU RF 2.23: "where activities aim at SDG 15, i.e. the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems und their services, they will be covered by the present EU RF indicator".

Additional Information:

For more information about the EU RF methodological notes, please see https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/eu-rfi

Additional Information:

For more information about the EU RF methodological notes, please see https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/eu-rfi

Additional Information: Through the reporting process, countries implementing the EITI Standard disclose scores of data. The International Secretariat republishes data collected by the countries via the website. The data cover:  - Full Government disclosure of revenues from the extractive industry – coded using Government Finance Statistics (GFS) from the IMF.  - Payments from companies to the government, disaggregated by revenue stream, company and project. - Indicators: These cover contextual and aggregate financial data for EITI Requirements 2-6 (production, export, GDP contribution, the state’s share of production, links to license and contracts registries, etc.…) as well as their availability (online, in the EITI Report,...)  Through Validation, the International Secretariat and independent Validator evaluate the country’s performance towards reaching the EITI Requirements. Validation covers three parts: - The EITI process: government, company and civil society engagement in the EITI process, planning and following-up on objectives, the performance of the multi-stakeholder group (requirement 1). - Comprehensiveness and quality of disclosure: does the country cover, through routine government and company disclosure or via EITI reporting, all of the areas as required by the Standard? (Requirements 2-6). - Outcomes and impact of the EITI in its contribution to public debate, data accessibility and review of recommendations and impact (requirement 7).

Additional Information: Where possible and practical it is best to ascertain whether national authorities and CSO's representatives have absorbed the knowledge and understand the concepts of natural resources and conflict risks.

Additional Information: The indicator “measures” the level to which a country’s legal framework exists to support the sustainable use of land, water, and forests; mitigate the social and environmental impact of extractive activities; and, fairly allocate the benefits, burdens, and responsibilities of resource extraction.

Additional Information:

Additional Information: Factor 6 "Regulatory Enforcement", indicator 6.5 of the WJP rule of law index: the indicator measures whether the government respects the property rights of people and corporations, refrains from the illegal seizure of private property, and provides adequate compensation when property is legally expropriated.

Additional Information:

Additional Information: Please define what 'actively participating' means in the local context.

Additional Information: The indicator “measures” the level to which a national legal system protects sustainable management of natural resources, and ensures that natural resources-based wealth is equitably distributed among population.

Additional Information: The indicator is inspired by Measuring Progress in Conflict Environment-MPICE, a metric framework.

Additional Information: This group of indicators assesses whether national laws comply with Section 16.9 of the VGGTs. Section 16.9 of the VGGTs provides that “Evictions and relocations should not result in individuals being rendered homeless or vulnerable to the violation of human rights. Where those affected are unable to provide for themselves, States should, to the extent that resources permit, take appropriate measures to provide adequate alternative housing, resettlement or access to productive land, fisheries and forests, as the case may be.” If the national laws assessed fully adopt the VGGT principle, then a score of "A" is given. If the national laws assessed partially adopt the VGGT principle, then a score of "B" is given. If the national laws assessed do not adopt the VGGT principle, then a score of "C" is given. 

Additional Information:

Additional Information: Status of specific legislation, constitutional guarantees and implementation of FPIC for Indigenous Peoples (Free, Prior and Informed Consent). Taken from the (EU-funded) Indigenous Navigator https://nav.indigenousnavigator.com/index.php/en/tools/indicators . 

Additional Information: From (EU-funded) Indigenous Navigator http://nav.indigenousnavigator.com/images/Documents/Tools/Navigator_UND…                                    1) Recognition of the state duty to consult with indigenous peoples before adopting or implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them and prior to approval of any project that affects their lands, territories and resources in national legislation.  2) Procedures or mechanisms for State consultation with indigenous peoples at national, sub-national and local levels. 3) Consultations with indigenous peoples’ autonomous institutions before approval of measures and projects that may affect them. 4) Free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples’ autonomous institutions before approval of measures that may affect them Impact assessments are undertaken prior to approval of projects that may affect them 5) Impact assessments are undertaken prior to approval of projects that may affect indigenous peoples’ lands, territories or resources, with the participation of indigenous peoples’ representative institutions.6) Incidents of conflicting land or resource claims.

Additional Information: A country score of A-D is awarded in the World Bank's Land Governance Assessment Framework Reports (also available on the Land Portal). 

Additional Information:

Additional Information: Compliance level should be assessed by an expert. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Nutrition" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information:

Percentage of women and men who have decision-making powers to decide on land use. The rights to make decisions on how the land should be used including deciding what crops should be planted, and to benefit financially from the sale of the crops falls under control rights to land. Other rights to land include:
- Use right: the right to use the land for grazing, growing subsistence crops, gathering minor forestry products, etc.;
- Transfer rights: the right to sell or mortgage the land, to convey the land to others through intra-community reallocations or to heirs, and to reallocate use and control right.

Method of Computation: {Number of (women and men separately) who participate in decisions about land use / Total number of population} x 100.

See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: SDG Indicator No. 1.4.2: the indicator measures the relevant part of Target 1.4 (ensure men and women have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to …, ownership of and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources). It measures the results of policies that aim to strengthen tenure security for all, including women and other vulnerable groups. It covers (a) all types of land use (such as residential, commercial, agricultural, forestry, grazing, wetlands based on standard land-use classification) in both rural and urban areas; and (b) all land tenure types as recognized at the country level, such as freehold, leasehold, public land, customary land. An individual can hold land in his/her own name, jointly with other individuals, as a member of a household, or collectively as member of group , cooperative or other type of association.  Computation Method: Indicator 1.4.2 is composed of two parts: (A) measures the incidence of adults with legally recognized documentation over land among the total adult population; while (B) focuses on the incidence of adults who report having perceived secure rights to land among the adult population. Part (A) and part (B) provide two complementary data sets on security of tenure rights, needed for measuring the indicator.  Indicator 1.4.2 = 0.5*Part(A) + 0.5*Part(B) See https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information., also on the definition of the following concepts: tenure, tenure typology, land governance, secure tenure rights, legally recognized documentation, perceived security of tenure.

Additional Information: Secure land tenure covers: formal titling, certificates or registration, customary tenure secured by an appropriate legal framework that ensures that customary rights cannot be negated and people cannot be arbitrarily dispossessed of their land. They can be secured by a variety of approaches, from legal to local actions. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Business Environment Reform" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators) Possible match with EU RF 2.3

Additional Information: This is a sub-indicator for the SDG Indicator No. 5.a.1: (a) Proportion of total agricultural population with ownership or secure rights over agricultural land, by sex; and (b) share of women among owners or rights-bearers of agricultural land, by type of tenure. Sub-indicator (b) focusses on the gender parity, measuring the extent to which women are disadvantaged in ownership / tenure rights over agricultural land:  Computation Method: {Number of women in agriculture with: Legally recognized document on agricultural land OR the right to sell it OR the right to bequeath it / Number of people in agriculture with: Legally recognized document on agricultural land OR the right to sell it OR the right to bequeath it} * 100 See https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information, in particular with reference to the concepts of: agricultural land, agricultural population, Ownership and tenure rights over agricultural land. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Nutrition" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: The Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI) measures the empowerment, agency, and inclusion of women in the agriculture sector in five domains: 1. decisions about agricultural production, 2. access to and decision-making power over productive resources, 3. control over use of income, 4. leadership in the community, and 5. time use See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Nutrition" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information: SDGIndicator 5.a.2 looks at the extent to which the legal framework (including customary law) guarantees women’s equal rights to land ownership and/or control.     The indicator assesses the level to which a country’s legal framework supports women’s land rights, by testing that framework against six proxies drawn from international law and internationally accepted good practices , in particular the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) ratified by 189 countries, and the Voluntary Guidelines for the Responsible Governance of the Tenure of Land Fisheries and Forestry (VGGT) endorsed unanimously by Committee of Food Security (CFS) members in 2012.    The six proxies through which indicator 5.a.2 is monitored are the following: Proxy A:  Joint registration of land compulsory or encouraged through economic incentives; Proxy B:  Compulsory spousal consent for land transactions; Proxy C: Women’s and girls’ equal inheritance rights; Proxy D: Allocation of financial resources to increase women’s ownership and control over land; Proxy E: In legal systems that recognise customary land tenure, existence of explicit protection of the land rights of women; Proxy F: Mandatory quotas for women’s participation in land management and administration institutions.  See https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information.

Additional Information: SDG Indicator No. 1.5.3: the indicator will build bridge between the SDGs and the Sendai Framework for DRR. See https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information, as well as the UNISDR Concept Note with definitions (2016): http://www.preventionweb.net/documents/oiewg/Technical%20Collection%20o…; Possible match with EU RF 2.19. 

Additional Information: The indicator, together with SENDAI indicators G1, G2, G4 and G5, is used to measure progress in achievement of Target G of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction: "Substantially increase the availability of and access to multi-hazard early warning systems and disaster risk information and assessments to the people by 2030". Indicator G-3 can provide an indication of the degree of progress being made in communication, dissemination and outreach to populations, representing one of the aforementioned four key elements of the multi-hazard early warning systems (MHEWS), (3) dissemination and communication, by an official source, of authoritative, timely, accurate and actionable warnings and associated information on likelihood and impact. If a MHEWS covers a small area (e.g. small island), determining the percentage coverage of the population would be important. For indicator G-3 it is not required a weighted average of hazard types, as it may be that communication doesn’t differ by hazard type. In measuring the population coverage, this indicator represents both inputs and outputs. Then Member States are to simply count the number of people who are covered by the determined primary media/mode (mass media including radio, TV, internet - website, e-mail, SMS, social media, and app; local communication system including siren, public board, and phone). As calculation of the exposed population is challenging, total population can be used as denominator to calculate the coverage. Thus, the penetration ratio (coverage) of the major information mode could be chosen as a proxy. The index will be between 1 and 0. See the Technical Guidance for more details on the computation methods (www.unisdr.org/files/54970_techguidancefdigitalhr.pdf).

Additional Information: The indicator, together with SENDAI indicators G1, G2, G3 and G4, is used to measure progress in achievement of Target G of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction: "Substantially increase the availability of and access to multi-hazard early warning systems and disaster risk information and assessments to the people by 2030". G-5 is an indicator representing one of the aforementioned four key elements of the multi-hazard early warning systems (MHEWS), (1) disaster risk knowledge based on the systematic collection of data and disaster risk assessments. The methodology of this indicator is similar to that of G-2; a weighted average of hazard types determined by country. Two options for computation are suggested, with weights for major hazards. In either option, the index will be between 1 and 0. a) Member States simply report whether it has accessible, understandable, usable and relevant disaster risk information and assessment, which is basically determined by each country in binary (i.e. yes or no, 1 or 0), for each of the major hazard types the country faces, calculating the score as the arithmetic average of all of the hazard specific scores. b) This option can measure the progress and improvement better with a focus on accessibility and availability as well as quality of disaster risk information and risk assessment. In so doing, Member States will first determine major hazard types to be considered in their multi-hazard national risk assessment and weights for each of their major hazards as written above. This option enables Member States to monitor gradual progress and improvement in the quality of risk information and assessment over time, rather than just its existence, by sub-indicators with level of implementation or achievement. The best methodology used to carry out a risk assessment will vary depending on the hazard type, and should consider the following elements: i. Be based on the most scientific approach possible (ideally probabilistic where feasible); ii. the product of a national consultation, shared, coordinated, and used by national institutions; iii. with clear responsibilities for decision making, planning, and storing data and information. Member States will assess each sub-indicator on each hazard type, and assign an incremental score from 0 to 1 (i.e. 0, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1) to the sub-indicator i and 1/0 (binary) to the sub-indicator ii and iii. These sub-indicators are proposed to be weighted equally, in the above case 1/3 to each, thus the score will be calculated by the arithmetic average for each hazard. See the Technical Guidance for more details on the computation methods (www.unisdr.org/files/54970_techguidancefdigitalhr.pdf).

Additional Information: SDG Indicator No. 16.3.1. note that this is a Tier II indicator (i.e. Indicator conceptually clear, established methodology and standards available but data are not regularly produced by countries) Possible custodian agency: UNODC Alternative: This indicator can be expanded to legal aid with respect to civil proceedings (both legal advice and legal representation for people without financial means, particularly women). See https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Justice Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information:

Additional Information:

Additional Information:

Possible match with EU RF 2.19:
"A climate change and/or disaster risk reduction (DRR) strategy refers to the following:
- A specific national or municipal level climate-relevant strategy such as a Low Emissions Development Strategy (LEDS), a National Adaption Programme of Action (NAPA), a National Adaptation Plan (NAP), a DRR Strategy or Joint climate change adaptation and DRR National Action Plan (JNAP), Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC), or Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA). It can also include a national and a municipal policy or strategy specifically focused on climate change and DRR.
- Strategies for mainstreaming ecosystem based approaches to adaptation and disaster risk reduction (EbA and EcoDRR) into National Biodiversity Strategic Action Plans, National Wetland Management Plans and the Natural Heritage Management Plans, as well as National Action Plans to combat desertification through EbA and Eco-DRR field measures that prevent and reduce land degradation as a means of reducing drought risks to vulnerable communities.
- Proof of support towards any other process of mainstreaming climate change and/or DRR considerations into national or municipal development plans and strategies or sector policies in areas such as energy, infrastructure, education, health, agriculture, land use planning, ecosystems and forest management.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its SDGs includes a commitment to substantially increase the number of cities and human settlements adopting and implementing integrated policies and plans towards inclusion, resource efficiency, mitigation and adaptation to climate change, resilience to disasters, and develop and implement, in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, holistic disaster risk management at all levels (SDG 11); and to strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and nature disasters in all countries (SDG 13)".

Additional Information:

Additional Information:

Possible match with EU RF 2.19
A climate change and/or disaster risk reduction (DRR) strategy refers to the following:
- A specific national or municipal level climate-relevant strategy such as a Low Emissions Development Strategy (LEDS), a National Adaption Programme of Action (NAPA), a National Adaptation Plan (NAP), a DRR Strategy or Joint climate change adaptation and DRR National Action Plan (JNAP), Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC), or Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA). It can also include a national and a municipal policy or strategy specifically focused on climate change and DRR.
- Strategies for mainstreaming ecosystem based approaches to adaptation and disaster risk reduction (EbA and EcoDRR) into National Biodiversity Strategic Action Plans, National Wetland Management Plans and the Natural Heritage Management Plans, as well as National Action Plans to combat desertification through EbA and Eco-DRR field measures that prevent and reduce land degradation as a means of reducing drought risks to vulnerable communities.
- Proof of support towards any other process of mainstreaming climate change and/or DRR considerations into national or municipal development plans and strategies or sector policies in areas such as energy, infrastructure, education, health, agriculture, land use planning, ecosystems and forest management.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) includes a commitment to substantially increase the number of cities and human settlements adopting and implementing integrated policies and plans towards inclusion, resource efficiency, mitigation and adaptation to climate change, resilience to disasters, and develop and implement, in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, holistic disaster risk management at all levels (SDG 11); and to strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and nature disasters in all countries (SDG 13)".

Additional Information: Value of national/local budget allocated to climate and DRR institutions/initiatives out of the overall State budget

Additional Information: SDG Indicator No.1.5.4. Information should be provided on the appropriate levels of government below the national level with responsibility for disaster risk reduction. Member States count the number of local governments that adopt and implement local DRR strategies in line with the national strategy and express it as a percentage of the total number of local governments in the country. Local governments are determined by the reporting country for this indicator, considering sub-national public administrations with responsibility to develop local disaster risk reduction strategies. Each Member State will calculate the ratio of the number of local governments with local DRR strategies in line with national strategies and the total number of local governments. Global Average will then be calculated through arithmetic average of the data from each Member State. See the Technical Guidance for more details (www.unisdr.org/files/54970_techguidancefdigitalhr.pdf). See the https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information. See also the  Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 (Sendai E2), as well as DEVCO Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators).

Additional Information: SDG Indicator No.1.5.3: the indicator measures the degree to which national DRR strategies are in line with the Sendai Framework. To facilitate this task, 10 key issues are proposed to as norms to measure the alignment with the Sendai Framework, considering their importance and relevance [See the Technical Guidance for more details (www.unisdr.org/files/54970_techguidancefdigitalhr.pdf)]. Member States will assess the level of implementation for each key element and enter all information in the web-based Sendai Framework Monitor. The ten key elements are proposed to be weighted equally by assigning 10% (or 0.1) to each element. As each element in itself may be composed of multiple sub-elements, countries will benchmark according to the following weighting: i. Comprehensive implementation (full score) : 1.0, ii. Substantial implementation, additional progress required : 0.75, iii. Moderate implementation, neither comprehensive nor substantial : 0.50, iv. Limited implementation : 0.25, If there is no implementation or no existence, it will be 0. The score / overall progress would then be calculated through the arithmetic average of the benchmarks across each of the ten key elements by the online system See the https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information.

Additional Information:

Additional Information: Expert assessments will need to be made in order to define and assess different aspects of quality. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Nutrition" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)

Additional Information:

Additional Information:

Additional Information:

Please specify the type of cases in question and the target locations.

Additional Information:

This indicators aims at capturing degree of relevance and usefulness of the information collected and produced by the EW/Security observatories, which effectively feed into policy and action by the relevant state and non-state peacebuilding actors. Indicator taken from 2016 IcSP Manual of Indicators Sector 8: Security Sector Reform 8.4. Post-conflict governance: Security observatory, conflict early warning systems.

Additional Information: Please specify the parties in conflict that are to be monitored and the target region.

Additional Information: This indicator aims to measure changes in the level of confidence expressed by the population with regard to the actions/behaviour of the security forces. Indicator taken from 2016 IcSP Manual, Sector 8 Security Sector Reform. 8.5 Military Justice. 

Additional Information: ndicator adapted from the 2016 IcSP Manual of Indicators Sector 9: Confidence Building, Mediation and Dialogue 9.3 Dialogue and reconciliation initiatives. This indicator aims to measure the evolution in the relationships between the different parties to the conflict as a result of dialogue. It is assumed that dialogue will increase confidence in the ability to resolve local conflicts through peaceful means. Degree of participation of women, youth and minorities/ marginalised groups. Target: Predefined expected percentage , set on the basis of the initial survey and of the local context, of population targeted by the project, who strongly trust the outcomes of ongoing reconciliation initiatives; Milestones: gradual improvement of this percentage, based on operator’s experience in similar actions

Additional Information: The following rating system could be used when answering to the survey/polling data: Rating: Average score of respondents on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: fully agree (4); partly agree (3); disagree (2); strongly disagree (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time.

Additional Information: The following rating system could be used when answering to the survey/polling data: Rating: Average score of respondents on a four-point scale corresponding to the following four response categories: fully agree (4); partly agree (3); disagree (2); strongly disagree (1). Dynamic: Direction and level of change in average score over time.

Additional Information:

Indicator partly taken from EU Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security 2019-2024 - Objective 1: Participation. The target is to see a minimum of 33% women participating in all EU activities and projects related to peace processes.

Additional Information: Indicator taken from the 2016 IcSP Manual of Indicators Sector 9: Confidence Building, Mediation and Dialogue 9.2 Monitoring of peace processes.

Additional Information: Local security services can mediate the resolution of disputes and ensure property security (from theft/vandalism/misuse) and human security. An external analysis will need to be commissioned by the project in order to assess the existence, capacities and mandate of such local structures in the target area.  

Additional Information:

Additional Information:

Additional Information:

Additional Information:

Additional Information: The indicator monitors the extent to which a country’s legal framework supports security forces' obligation to clear battlefields/territory from landmines, UXOs and ERW.

Additional Information:

Additional Information:

Additional Information:

Additional Information: Please specify in the indicator who is the target population.

Additional Information:

Additional Information:

Additional Information:

Additional Information:

Additional Information:

Additional Information:

Additional Information:

Additional Information:

Additional Information:

Please identify the target group in the local context, specify what type of integration is being monitored (i.e. social/community life, family life, education, employment, or other), as well as how each sphere will be assessed (in other words, what factors will tell us when a person has been successfully reintegrated into their community or family).

Additional Information:

Core indicator for the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP).