Results and Indicators
Result | Indicator(s) |
Impact: To build, sustain and ... |
Country ranking according to the Bertelsmann Transformation Index (BTI)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Bertelsmann Transformation Index (BTI)
(Governance Index: https://www.bti-project.org/en/data/rankings/governance-index/)
Additional Information:
The Governance Index ranks the countries according to their leadership’s political management performance between February 2015 and January 2017. The Governance Index evaluates the governance quality of a country's political decision-makers, while taking into consideration the level of difficulty. The Index's overall result is calculated by multiplying the governance performance with a factor derived from the level of difficulty: very good, good, moderate, weak and failed.Â
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for "Governance" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
Overall Rule of Law country score according to the Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG) (http://iiag.online/ ; s.mo.ibrahim.foundation/
u/2018/10/28183509/2018_IIAG_Metadata.xlsx)
Additional Information:
The IIAG index provides data measuring the governance performance across four key components (Safety & Rule of Law, Participation & Human Rights, Sustainable Economic Opportunity, Human Development) that effectively provide indicators of a country's Overall Governance performance for all 54 African countries for the years from 2008-2017. The data used to calculate the IIAG is exclusively provided by external sources (i.e. UN agencies, WB, ADB), but also data projects (e.g. Armed Conflict Location & Events Data Project) and surveys (e.g. Afrobarometer). Check the methodological note in the IIAG website.
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for "Justice Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
|
Country score according to the Global Peace Index (GPI) - Negative Peace indicator on the number of deaths from internal organised conflict
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Institute for Economics and Peace (http://economicsandpeace.org/): Global Peace Indexhttp://visionofhumanity.org/indexes/global-peace-index/)
Additional Information:
Scores are normalised on a scale of 1-5. This indicator uses the UCDP’s definition of conflict. UCDP defines conflict as: “a contested incompatibility that concerns government and/or territory where the use of armed force between two parties, of which at least one is the government of a state, results in at least 25 battle-related deaths in a year.†Statistics are compiled from the most recent edition of the IISS ACD, which has the following definition of armed conflict-related fatalities: ‘Fatality statistics relate to military and civilian lives lost as a direct result of an armed conflict’. The figures relate to the country which is the main area of conflict. For some conflicts no reliable statistics are available. Estimates of war fatalities vary according to source, sometimes by a wide margin.
Global Peace Index (GPI) measures the relative position of nations' and regions' peacefulness. The GPI is a report produced by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) and developed in consultation with an international panel of peace experts from peace institutes and think tanks with data collected and collated by the Economist Intelligence Unit. Measures of Negative Peace are used to construct the GPI. IEP’s interpretation of Negative Peace is the absence of violence or fear of violence – an intuitive definition that enables peace to be gauged more easily. The GPI ranks 163 independent states and territories (99.7 per cent of the world’s population) according to their levels of peacefulness, using 23 qualitative and quantitative 'Negative Peace indicators' from highly respected sources, and measures the state of peace using three thematic domains: the level of Societal Safety and Security; the extent of Ongoing Domestic and International Conflict; and the degree of Militarisation. Societal Safety and Security refer to internal and interpersonal aspects of violence, such as homicide, incarceration or availability of small arms. Ongoing Conflict and Militarisation capture the extent of current violent conflicts and each country’s military capacity.
|
|
Country score according to the Global Peace Index (GPI) - Negative Peace indicator on the number and duration of internal conflicts
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Institute for Economics and Peace (http://economicsandpeace.org/): Global Peace Indexhttp://visionofhumanity.org/indexes/global-peace-index/
Additional Information:
Scores are normalised on a scale of 1-5. This indicator measures the number and duration of conflicts that occur within a specific country’s legal boundaries. Information for this indicator is sourced from three datasets from the Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP): the Battle-Related Deaths Dataset, Non-State Conflict Dataset and One-sided Violence Dataset. The score for a country is determined by adding the scores for all individual conflicts which have occurred within that country’s legal boundaries over the last five years. Â
Global Peace Index (GPI) measures the relative position of nations' and regions' peacefulness. The GPI is a report produced by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) and developed in consultation with an international panel of peace experts from peace institutes and think tanks with data collected and collated by the Economist Intelligence Unit. Measures of Negative Peace are used to construct the GPI. IEP’s interpretation of Negative Peace is the absence of violence or fear of violence – an intuitive definition that enables peace to be gauged more easily. The GPI ranks 163 independent states and territories (99.7 per cent of the world’s population) according to their levels of peacefulness, using 23 qualitative and quantitative 'Negative Peace indicators' from highly respected sources, and measures the state of peace using three thematic domains: the level of Societal Safety and Security; the extent of Ongoing Domestic and International Conflict; and the degree of Militarisation. Societal Safety and Security refer to internal and interpersonal aspects of violence, such as homicide, incarceration or availability of small arms. Ongoing Conflict and Militarisation capture the extent of current violent conflicts and each country’s military capacity.
|
|
Country score according to the Global Peace Index (GPI) Negative Peace indicator on the intensity of organised internal conflict
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Institute for Economics and Peace (http://economicsandpeace.org/): Global Peace Indexhttp://visionofhumanity.org/indexes/global-peace-index/
Additional Information:
This indicator is based on the assessment of the intensity of conflicts within the country, ranked from 1-5 (no conflict to severe crisis) by the EIU’s Country Analysis team. Country analysts are asked to assess this indicator on an annual basis, for the period March to March.
Global Peace Index (GPI) measures the relative position of nations' and regions' peacefulness. The GPI is a report produced by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) and developed in consultation with an international panel of peace experts from peace institutes and think tanks with data collected and collated by the Economist Intelligence Unit. Measures of Negative Peace are used to construct the GPI. IEP’s interpretation of Negative Peace is the absence of violence or fear of violence – an intuitive definition that enables peace to be gauged more easily. The GPI ranks 163 independent states and territories (99.7 per cent of the world’s population) according to their levels of peacefulness, using 23 qualitative and quantitative 'Negative Peace indicators' from highly respected sources, and measures the state of peace using three thematic domains: the level of Societal Safety and Security; the extent of Ongoing Domestic and International Conflict; and the degree of Militarisation. Societal Safety and Security refer to internal and interpersonal aspects of violence, such as homicide, incarceration or availability of small arms. Ongoing Conflict and Militarisation capture the extent of current violent conflicts and each country’s military capacity.
|
|
Country score according to the Global Peace Index (GPI) Negative Peace indicator on the number of homicides per 100,000 people
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Institute for Economics and Peace (http://economicsandpeace.org/): Global Peace Indexhttp://visionofhumanity.org/indexes/global-peace-index/
Additional Information:
This indicator comes from the UNODC Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems. Intentional homicide refers to death deliberately inflicted on a person by another person, including infanticide. The figures refer to the total number of penal code offences or their equivalent, but exclude minor road traffic and other petty offences, brought to the attention of the police or other law enforcement agencies and recorded by one of those agencies.
Global Peace Index (GPI) measures the relative position of nations' and regions' peacefulness. The GPI is a report produced by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) and developed in consultation with an international panel of peace experts from peace institutes and think tanks with data collected and collated by the Economist Intelligence Unit. Measures of Negative Peace are used to construct the GPI. IEP’s interpretation of Negative Peace is the absence of violence or fear of violence – an intuitive definition that enables peace to be gauged more easily. The GPI ranks 163 independent states and territories (99.7 per cent of the world’s population) according to their levels of peacefulness, using 23 qualitative and quantitative 'Negative Peace indicators' from highly respected sources, and measures the state of peace using three thematic domains: the level of Societal Safety and Security; the extent of Ongoing Domestic and International Conflict; and the degree of Militarisation. Societal Safety and Security refer to internal and interpersonal aspects of violence, such as homicide, incarceration or availability of small arms. Ongoing Conflict and Militarisation capture the extent of current violent conflicts and each country’s military capacity.
|
|
Country score according to the Global Peace Index (GPI) Negative Peace indicator on the level of violent crime
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Institute for Economics and Peace (http://economicsandpeace.org/): Global Peace Indexhttp://visionofhumanity.org/indexes/global-peace-index/
Additional Information:
This indicator is based on the assessment of the likelihood of violent crime ranked from 1 to 5 (very low to very high) by the EIU’s Country Analysis team based on the question, “Is violent crime likely to pose a significant problem for government and/or business over the next two years?†Country analysts assess this question on a quarterly basis. The score provided for 16 March 2018 to 15 March 2019 is the average of the scores given for each quarter.
Global Peace Index (GPI) measures the relative position of nations' and regions' peacefulness. The GPI is a report produced by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) and developed in consultation with an international panel of peace experts from peace institutes and think tanks with data collected and collated by the Economist Intelligence Unit. Measures of Negative Peace are used to construct the GPI. IEP’s interpretation of Negative Peace is the absence of violence or fear of violence – an intuitive definition that enables peace to be gauged more easily. The GPI ranks 163 independent states and territories (99.7 per cent of the world’s population) according to their levels of peacefulness, using 23 qualitative and quantitative 'Negative Peace indicators' from highly respected sources, and measures the state of peace using three thematic domains: the level of Societal Safety and Security; the extent of Ongoing Domestic and International Conflict; and the degree of Militarisation. Societal Safety and Security refer to internal and interpersonal aspects of violence, such as homicide, incarceration or availability of small arms. Ongoing Conflict and Militarisation capture the extent of current violent conflicts and each country’s military capacity.
|
|
Country score according to the Global Peace Index (GPI) Negative Peace indicator on the impact of terrorism
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Institute for Economics and Peace (http://economicsandpeace.org/): Global Peace Indexhttp://visionofhumanity.org/indexes/global-peace-index/
Additional Information:
Terrorist incidents are defined as “intentional acts of violence or threat of violence by a non-state actor.†Using the comprehensive, event-based Global Terrorism Database, the GTI combines four variables to develop a composite score: the number of terrorist incidents in a given year, the total number of fatalities in a given year, the total number of injuries caused in a given year and the approximate level of property damage in a given year. The composite score captures the direct effects of terrorist-related violence, in terms of its physical effect, but also attempts to reflect the residual effects of terrorism in terms of emotional wounds and fear by attributing a weighted average to the damage inflicted in previous years. As of the date of publication, the Global Terrorism Database only logs events up to 31 December 2017. To assess the impact of terrorism between this date and 20 March 2019 cut-off, IEP uses data from publicly available third party sources to impute terrorist activity in that period. All scores are normalised on a scale of 1-5, whereby GPI qualitative indicators are banded into five groupings and quantitative ones are scored from 1 to 5, to the third decimal point.
Global Peace Index (GPI) measures the relative position of nations' and regions' peacefulness. The GPI is a report produced by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) and developed in consultation with an international panel of peace experts from peace institutes and think tanks with data collected and collated by the Economist Intelligence Unit. Measures of Negative Peace are used to construct the GPI. IEP’s interpretation of Negative Peace is the absence of violence or fear of violence – an intuitive definition that enables peace to be gauged more easily. The GPI ranks 163 independent states and territories (99.7 per cent of the world’s population) according to their levels of peacefulness, using 23 qualitative and quantitative 'Negative Peace indicators' from highly respected sources, and measures the state of peace using three thematic domains: the level of Societal Safety and Security; the extent of Ongoing Domestic and International Conflict; and the degree of Militarisation. Societal Safety and Security refer to internal and interpersonal aspects of violence, such as homicide, incarceration or availability of small arms. Ongoing Conflict and Militarisation capture the extent of current violent conflicts and each country’s military capacity.
|
|
Country ranking according to the Positive Peace Index
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Institute for Economics and Peace Vision for Humanity: Positive Peace Report
http://visionofhumanity.org/app/uploads/2018/11/Positive-Peace-Report-2…;
Additional Information:
The Positive Peace Index (PPI) measures the level of Positive Peace in 163 countries. The PPI is composed of 24 indicators that capture the eight Pillars of Positive Peace. Each Pillar examines one aspect of socio-economic development that contributes to wellbeing and peacefulness: they were derived from the datasets that had the strongest correlation with internal peacefulness as measured by the Global Peace Index, an index which uses the “absence of violence or the fear of violence†as its definition of peace. See the 2018 Positive Peace Report for additional information and details on the indicators.
|
|
Country score according to the INFORM Risk Index
(Numeric)
Data Source:
www.inform-index.org
It is a successor to the EC’s Global Needs Assessment with Forgotten Crisis Index and OCHA's Global Focus Model. INFORM is a common index for all organisations and institutions. They may, however, choose to adapt INFORM to make their own specific tool for internal use.
Additional Information:
INFORM is the only open, global risk index for humanitarian crises. It combines around 50 different indicators that measure hazards (events that could occur), vulnerability (the susceptibility of communities to those hazards) and capacity (resources available that can alleviate the impact). INFORM covers 191 countries and includes both natural and human hazards. All the individual indicators, index components and calculations are open and transparent. Ranking countries is not the purpose of INFORM. Rather it is to provide an objective and transparent analysis of risk.
|
|
Country’s fragility status for each dimension of fragility (economic, environmental, political, security and societal) according to the OECD
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
OECD
(www.oecd.org/dac/conflict-fragility-resilience/listofstateoffragilityre…);
(https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/9789264302075-15-en/index.html?item…
component/9789264302075-15-en&mimeType=text/html)
Additional Information:
OECD Fragility Framework: the OECD defines 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.Â
See the methodological annex for additional information and for details on its limitations: the framework is unable to capture macro-level drivers of fragility – drivers that spill over borders – or micro-level drivers that lead to localised pockets of fragility within states. Further, while data on governance are widely available, data on informal institutions are less so. While every effort has been made to include indicators of both of these, at this point the lack of quality data is a limiting factor for the model.
NB: In the States of Fragility Report, the OECD provides a list with countries that are considered fragile to varying degrees in the 5 different dimensions (rather than a ranking of countries). So, at impact level, the indicator would be: "country status as a fragile state" [yes/no]. Only the 56 countries that are identified as fragile are included in the report, so this indicator can be used for a sub-set of partner countries.
|
|
Country score according to the CIVICUS Monitor
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Annual CIVICUS Monitor report (https://www.civicus.org/index.php/what-we-do/innovate/
civicus-monitor)
Additional Information:
Each country is assigned a rating as follows: open, narrowed, obstructed, repressed or closed. CIVICUS Monitor recognises that ratings alone may offer a crude measure of the state of civic space in any given context, which is why it emphasises the importance of up-to-date, locally-generated analysis to complement the ratings. Nonetheless, a rating system enables useful comparisons to be made across different countries, and also encourages the tracking of a country's overall civic space conditions over time.
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Governance" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
|
Country ranking according to the Political Stability and Absence of Violence Dimension of the Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#homehttp://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/#reports
Additional Information:
The Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) project reports aggregate and individual governance indicators for over 200 countries and territories over the period 1996–2016, for six dimensions of governance: Voice and Accountability, Political Stability and Absence of Violence, Government Effectiveness, Regulatory Quality, Rule of Law, Control of Corruption.
Political Stability and Absence of Violence measures perceptions of the likelihood of political instability and/or politically-motivated violence, including terrorism. Higher values corresponding to better governance outcomes.
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Security Sector Reform" Â (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
|
Number of victims of intentional homicide per 100,000 population, disaggregated by sex, age group of the victim and the perpetrator, relationship, means of perpetration, situational context/ motivation (SDG 16.1.1)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Separate sources exist at country level
• UNODC - see SDG Global Indicators Database: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/
database/;
• criminal justice system;
• public health/civil registration systems.
• When existing, figures from both data sources are reported. Population data are derived
from annual estimates produced by the UN Population Division.
• WHO
Additional Information:
SDG Indicator No. 16.1.1: the indicator is defined as the total count of victims of intentional homicide divided by the total population, expressed per 100,000 population. The International Classification of Crime for Statistical Purposes (ICCS) provides indications on how to distinguish between intentional homicides, killings directly related to war/conflict and other killings that amount to war crimes.
See https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information.
|
|
Conflict-related deaths per 100,000 population, disaggregated by sex, age group, ethnicity and cause (SDG 16.1.2)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
SDG Global Indicators Database, (https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/?Text=&-
Goal=16&Target=)
Examples of data sources include eyewitnesses; hospital records; community elders, religious
and civil leaders; security forces and conflict parties; local authorities; prosecution
offices, police and other law enforcement agencies, health authorities; government departments
and officials; UN and other international organizations; detailed media reports
and other relevant civil society organizations.
• Data providers: national and international providers that have been assessed by OHCHR
for their application of the indicator’s associated methodology, including UN entities
working on casualty recording in the framework of their operations (e.g. peacekeeping
operations, commissions of inquiry, humanitarian operations and human rights offices),
national human rights institutions, national statistical offices and relevant civil society
organizations.
•http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Indicators/Pages/HRIndicatorsIndex.aspx
Additional Information:
SDG Indicator No. 16.1.2: this indicator is defined as the total count of conflict-related deaths divided by the total population, expressed per 100,000 population. This indicator measures the prevalence of armed conflicts and their impact in terms of loss of life and it measures violent deaths that occur in all countries of the world (intentional homicides) and in situations of armed conflict (conflict-related deaths).
See the https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information.
|
|
Incidence of the use of armed force by an organized actor against another organized actor, or against civilians, resulting in at least 1 direct death in either the best, low or high estimate categories at a specific location and for a specific temporal duration [please specify]
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Uppsala Conflict Data Programme (UCDP): https://www.ucdp.uu.se/
Additional Information:
The Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) is the world’s main provider of data on organized violence and the oldest ongoing data collection project for civil war, with a history of almost 40 years. Each instance of organized violence that meets its criteria is recorded as a single observation in the dataset and constitutes a unit of analysis. From this definition of an event, it follows that the dataset contains only events in which it was possible to deduce fatality estimates; incidents where it is unclear how many, or if there were any, fatalities are not included. These criteria are adapted from the UCDP’s base definition of what constitutes an armed conflict/non-state conflict/ one-sided violence, but with the removal of the 25 deaths criterion (in the calendar year) so as to place the definition on the level of the individual event. The dataset contains events for all dyads and actors that, per calendar year, surpass the 25 deaths threshold for inclusion – the same threshold that is applied across all of the UCDP’s data on organized violence.
|
|
Number of reported incidents of violence during the last election period
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EOM reports, Reports of the Election Management Bodies,
Reports of domestic election observer organisations
Additional Information:
The Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) is the world’s main provider of data on organized violence and the oldest ongoing data collection project for civil war, with a history of almost 40 years. Its definition of armed conflict has become the global standard of how conflicts are systematically defined and studied.
|
|
Number of verified cases of killing, kidnapping, enforced disappearance, arbitrary detention and torture of journalists, associated media personnel, trade unionists and human rights advocates in the previous 12 month, disaggregated by sex, age group, ethnicity, type of violation or abuse, perpetrator status, e.g. State actor vs non-State actors, administrative sub-region, location (urban/peri-urban/rural) of the incident
(SDG 16.10.1)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
SDG Indicator No. 16.10.1: as for other crime statistics and other statistics based on administrative sources, this indicator is sensitive to the completeness of reporting of individual events. There is a real but manageable risk of underreporting.
Drawing on the ICCS, which is an incidents-based international classification system, the indicator counts victims on the basis of cases of violations or abuses using a classification framework developed for the purposes of the indicator.
See https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information.
|
|
Proportion of population that feel safe walking alone around the area they live, disaggregated by sex, age group, ethnicity (SDG 16.1.4)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
SDG Indicator No. 16.1.4: it is important to understand that ‘fear of crime’ is a phenomenon that is separate from the prevalence of crime and that may be even largely independent from actual experience, as the perception of crime and the resulting fear of it is mediated by a number of factors, such as the awareness of crime, the public discussion and the media and personal circumstances.
The question measures the feeling of fear of crime in a context outside the house and refers to the immediate experience of this fear by the respondent by limiting the area in question to the “neighbourhood†or “your area†(various formulations depending on cultural, physical and language context). UNODC-UNECE has published a Manual on Victimization Surveys that provides technical guidance on the implementation of such surveys, on the basis of good practices developed at country level. UNODC-UNECE Manual on Victimization Surveys (2010), available at: https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/Crime-statistics/Manu…
The question used in victimization surveys is: How safe do you feel walking alone in your area/neighbourhood? Answer: Very safe/fairly safe/bit unsafe/very unsafe/ I never walk alone after dark/don’t know. The proportion of population that feel safe is calculated by summing up the number of respondents who feel “very safe†and “fairly safe†and dividing the total by the total number of respondents.
See the https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information.
|
|
Proportion of population subjected to (a) physical violence, (b) psychological violence and (c) sexual violence in the previous 12 months, disaggregated by sex, age group, income level, education, citizenship, ethnicity (SDG 16.1.3)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
SDG Indicator No. 16.1.3: this indicator is defined as the total number of persons who have been victim of physical, psychological or sexual violence in the previous 12 months, as a share of the total population.
Computation Method: number of survey respondents who have been victim of physical, psychological or sexual violence in the previous 12 months, divided by the total number of survey respondents.
See https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information.
|
|
Number of deaths, missing persons and directly affected persons attributed to disasters, per 100,000 population (SDG 11.5.1) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR)
Additional Information:
SDG Indicator No. 1.5.1: disaster loss data is greatly influenced by large-scale catastrophic events, which represent important outliers. UNISDR recommends countries report the data by event, so that complementary analysis can be undertaken to obtain trends and patterns in which such catastrophic events (that can represent outliers) can be included or excluded. Computation Method: This indicator, X, is calculated as a simple summation of related indicators See the https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information. |
|
Direct economic loss attributed to disasters in relation to global gross domestic product (GDP) (SDG 11.5.2)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
SDG Global Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. Data
providers: National Statistical Offices, Police, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Interior, Prosecutor’s
Office. Data compilers: UNODC
Additional Information:
SDG Indicator No. 1.5.2: the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 was adopted by UN Member States in March 2015 as a global policy of disaster risk reduction. Disaster loss data is greatly influenced by large-scale catastrophic events, which represent important outliers. UNISDR recommends countries report the data by event, so that complementary analysis can be undertaken to obtain trends and patterns in which such catastrophic events (that can represent outliers in terms of damage) can be included or excluded. The Sendai Framework Monitoring System has been developed to measure the progress in the implementation of the Sendai Framework by UNGA endorsed indicators. Member States will be able to report through the System from March 2018. The data for SDG Indicator will be compiled and reported by UNISDR.
Examples of physical assets that are the basis for calculating direct economic loss include homes, schools, hospitals, commercial and governmental buildings, transport, energy, telecommunications infrastructures and other infrastructure; business assets and industrial plants; production such as crops, livestock and production infrastructure. They may also encompass environmental assets and cultural heritage. Â Direct economic losses usually happen during the event or within the first few hours after the event and are often assessed soon after the event to estimate recovery cost and claim insurance payments. These are tangible and relatively easy to measure.
Disaster loss data is greatly influenced by large-scale catastrophic events, which represent important outliers. UNISDR recommends countries report the data by event, so that complementary analysis can be undertaken to obtain trends and patterns in which such catastrophic events (that can represent outliers in terms of damage) can be included or excluded.
Computation Method: this indicator, X, is calculated as a simple summation of related indicators from national disaster loss databases ( divided by the  global GDP (from national censuses, World Bank or UN Statistical Commission information).
Data Disaggregation:
Direct agricultural loss attributed to disasters.
Direct economic loss to all other damaged or destroyed productive assets attributed to disasters.
Direct economic loss in the housing sector attributed to disasters.
Direct economic loss resulting from damaged or destroyed critical infrastructure attributed to disasters.
Direct economic loss to cultural heritage damaged or destroyed attributed to disasters.
Desirable Disaggregation:
Hazard, Geography (Administrative Unit)
See https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information.
|
|
Direct economic loss in relation to global GDP, damage to critical infrastructure and number of disruptions to basic services, attributed to disaster (SDG 11.5.2) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
SDG Global Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/ • Data providers: special purpose agencies including national disaster management agencies,
Additional Information:
SDG Indicator No. 11.5.2. Definition: Direct economic loss: the monetary value of total or partial destruction of physical assets existing in the affected area. Direct economic loss is nearly equivalent to physical damage. The disaster loss data is significantly influenced by large-scale catastrophic events, which represent important outliers. UNISDR recommends Countries to report the data by event, so complementary analysis can be done by both including and excluding such catastrophic events that can represent important outliers. Computation method: the original national disaster loss databases usually register physical damage value (housing unit loss, infrastructure loss etc.), which needs conversion to monetary value according to the UNISDR methodology. The converted global value is divided by global GDP (inflation adjusted, constant USD) calculated from the World Bank Development Indicators. Disaggregation: See https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information. |
|
Number of people whose damaged dwellings were attributed to disasters, disaggregated by sex, age, disability status, income, ethnicity, hazard, administrative sub-region, location - urban/peri-urban/rural (Sendai B3)
Alternative: Number of dwellings that were damaged attributed to disasters
(Numeric)
Data Source:
UN https://sdg-tracker.org/peace-justice
Given that acts of violence are heavily underreported to the authorities, this indicator
needs to be based on data collected through sample surveys of the adult population.
This indicator is derived from surveys on crime victimization or from other household
surveys with a module on crime victimization.
SDG Global Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. Data
providers: National Statistical Offices, Police, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Interior, Prosecutor’s
Office, Data compilers: UNODC annual data collection (UN-CTS)
Additional Information:
Alternative: Number of dwellings that were damaged attributed to disasters
Â
Data to be collected for each disaster:
B-3 Number of people whose damaged dwellings were attributed to disasters
B-3a : Number of dwellings/houses damaged attributed to disasters
Indicator B-3 can be directly measured in situ, estimated using a nationally defined methodology, or left blank and estimated by UNISDR based on B-3a using the methodology suggested in the "Technical Guidance for Monitoring and Reporting on Progress in Achieving the Global Targets
of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction", if the corresponding data, metadata and socio-economic parameters are provided.
[Metadata]
Additional demographic and socio-economic parameters needed
Population : Population of the country and Number of Households in the country, OR the average number of people per household, for each of the years of the reporting exercise.
The national indicator would be calculated using the data of the country.
The global indicator is the sum of the indicators of all countries having reported.
|
|
Number of people whose livelihoods were disrupted or destroyed, attributed to disasters, disaggregated by sex, age, disability status, income, hazard, administrative sub-region, location - urban/peri-urban/rural (Sendai B5)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
SDG Global Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. National
database (e.g. ministries of agriculture, economy, finance). United Nations Office for
Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR)https://www.preventionweb.net/files/54970_collectionoftechnicalguidance…
Additional Information:
Indicator B-5 can be directly measured in situ, estimated using a nationally defined methodology, or left blank and estimated by UNISDR using the methodology suggested in this Guidance, if the corresponding sub indicators, data, metadata and socio-economic parameters are provided.
Please note that this methodology requires the following data and metadata to be collected by disaster, related to the indicators for Target C :
– C-2Ca Number of hectares of crops damaged or destroyed by disasters. (To be used to establish the statistic of Number of Workers affected)
– C-2La Number of Livestock lost in disasters (to be used to establish the statistic of Number of Workers affected)
– C-3a Number of Productive Assets Facilities (such as Industrial, Commercial, Services, etc.) damaged or destroyed by disasters (to be used to establish the statistic of Number of Workers affected in all facilities type)
See the methodology for additional information on the desirable Disaggregation.
Additional demographic and socio-economic parameters needed.
Population : Population of the country and Number of Households in the country, OR the average number of people per household, for each of the years of the reporting exercise.
The national indicator would be calculated using the data of the country.
The global indicator with the sum of the indicators of all countries reporting.
|
|
Number of other destroyed or damaged critical infrastructure units and facilities attributed to disasters, disaggregated by hazard, administrative sub-region, location - urban/peri-urban/rural, level of affectation (damaged/destroyed), size of facility (small/medium/large or criteria such as unpaved, single paved, highway for roads) (Sendai D4)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
The definition of "critical infrastructure" is left to member states. Protective infrastructure and green infrastructure should be included where relevant.
Note that this indicator shares (or should share) data and metadata with the Sendai indicator C-5:
Data to be collected for each disaster (linked to C-5) :
• For each of the infrastructure types declared in the Metadata that are affected in a disaster :
• C-5a : Type of asset (Code, see metadata)
• C-5b : Number of Units or Facilities of these Infrastructure assets damaged/destroyed
• C-5c : Measurement of the damage for Network units (in measurement units such as meters or kilometres)
Definition of Metadata describing assets and Infrastructure elements For each type of productive asset that is reported :
• Code
• Description
• Group or Economic Sector/Activity in ISIC or adopted classification
• Measurement Units (M2, Mt, Hectare, Km, etc.)
• Value per measurement unit [Series per Year 2005… 2030]
• % of value for equipment, furniture, materials, product
• % of value for associated physical infrastructure
|
|
Proportion of the population living below the international poverty line by sex, age, employment status and geographic location (urban/rural) (SDG 1.1.1.) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
• SDG Global Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/
Additional Information:
SDG Indicator No. 1.1.1: the indicator is defined as the percentage (proportion) of the population living in households below the international poverty line where the average daily consumption (or income) per person is on less than $1.90 a day at 2011 (updated 2015) international prices. The 'international poverty line' is currently set at $1.90 a day at 2011 international prices. See the https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information on the rationale, the data sources and the collection methods for this indicator. 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) |
|
Unemployment rate, disaggregated by sex, age and disability status (SDG 8.5.2) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
• SDG Global Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/
Additional Information:
SDG 8.5, indicator 8.5.2: persons in unemployment are defined as all those of working age (usually persons aged 15 and above) who were not in employment, carried out activities to seek employment during a specified recent period and were currently available to take up employment given a job opportunity. To favour international comparability, the working-age population is often defined as all persons aged 15 and older, but this may vary from country to country based on national laws and practices (some countries also apply an upper age limit). (Source: ILO) SDG 8.5, indicator 8.5.2. in many developing countries the significance and meaning of the unemployment rate could be questioned. In the absence of unemployment insurance systems or social safety nets, persons of working age must avoid unemployment, resorting to engaging in some form of economic activity, however insignificant or inadequate. Thus, in this context, other measures should supplement the unemployment rate to comprehensively assess labour underutilization. Method of Computation: See the https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information. 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) |
|
Employment rate in targeted sectors disaggregated by sex, age and disability status
(Percentage)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
Measures the number of people employed as share of the total employment in a country's economy - in the sector(s) (using the ISIC classification) targeted by the EU-funded intervention. Employed persons are persons of working age who, during the reference period, were in the following categories: a) paid employment (whether at work or with a job but not at work); or b) self-employment (whether at work or with an enterprise but not at work).
|
|
Average hourly earnings of female and male employees, by sex, age, occupation, and disability status (SDG 8.5.1)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
SDG Indicator No. 8.5.1. earnings refer to the gross remuneration in cash or in kind paid to employees, as a rule at regular intervals, for time worked or work done together with remuneration for time not worked, such as annual vacation, other type of paid leave or holidays. Earnings exclude employers’ contributions in respect of their employees paid to social security and pension schemes and also the benefits received by employees under these schemes. Earnings also exclude severance and termination pay.Â
Computation Method:
Statistics on average hourly earnings by sex can be used to calculate the gender pay gap, as follows:
Gender pay gap=  (〖Average hourly earnings〗_Men- 〖Average hourly earnings〗_Women)/〖Average hourly earnings〗_Men  x 100
See the https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information.
|
|
Proportion of informal employment in total employment, by sector and sex (SDG 8.3.1)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
SDG Indicator No. 8.3.1: Informal employment comprises persons who in their main or secondary jobs were in one of the following categories:
- Own-account workers, employers and members of producers’ cooperatives employed in their own informal sector enterprises (the characteristics of the enterprise determine the informal nature of their jobs);
- Own-account workers engaged in the production of goods exclusively for own final use by their household (e.g. subsistence farming);
- Contributing family workers, regardless of whether they work in formal or informal sector enterprises (they usually do not have explicit, written contracts of employment, and are not subject to labour legislation, social security regulations, collective agreements, etc., which determines the informal nature of their jobs);
- Employees holding informal jobs, whether employed by formal sector enterprises, informal sector enterprises, or as paid domestic workers by households (employees are considered to have informal jobs if their employment relationship is, in law or in practice, not subject to national labour legislation, income taxation, social protection or entitlement to certain employment benefits).
An enterprise belongs to the informal sector if it fulfils the three following conditions:
- It is an unincorporated enterprise (it is not constituted as a legal entity separate from its owners, and it is owned and controlled by one or more members of one or more households, and it is not a quasi-corporation: it does not have a complete set of accounts, including balance sheets);
- It is a market enterprise (it sells at least some of the goods or services it produces);
- The enterprise is not registered or the employees of the enterprise are not registered or the number of persons engaged on a continuous basis is below a threshold determined by the country.
Computation Method:
[(Proportion of informal employment in non agricultural employment-activities / Total employment in non agricultural activities) × 100]
See the https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information.
|
|
Number of days not worked due to strikes and lockouts, disaggregated by economic activity
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
Days not worked as a result of strikes and lockouts represent the total number of working days not worked as a result of strikes and lockouts in progress during the year. It is measured in terms of the sum of the actual working days during which work would normally have been carried out by each worker involved had there been no stoppage. Data are disaggregated by economic activity according to the latest version of the International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC) available for that year. Economic activity refers to the main activity of the establishment in which a person worked during the reference period and does not depend on the specific duties or functions of the person's job, but on the characteristics of the economic unit in which this person works.Â
|
|
Number of persons in forced labour, disaggregated by age group (children 17 and below and adults aged 18 and above) and by sex and migration status
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Sendai Indicator B5: www.unisdr.org/files/54970_techguidancefdigitalhr.pdf
Additional Information:
|
|
Annual growth rate of real GDP per employed person (SDG 8.2.1) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
SDG Global Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. Data
Additional Information:
SDG Indicator No. 8.2.1. See the https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information, particularly with reference to the definition of the following concepts: GDP, Real GDP, Employed person. |
|
Rate of deforestation
(Percentage)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
Deforestation is the result of processes driven by multiple causes occurring at various scales and differing significantly between locations. Main causes of deforestation include human activities with direct impacts on forest cover, such as agricultural expansion, urban growth, infrastructure development and mining. According to FAO estimates, agricultural expansion is the most significant driver of deforestation worldwide. A reduced rate of deforestation is both an indicator of good management practices and improved well being, and a condition for sustainable agriculture. This indicator measure not the result of active intervention (afforestation) but the side effects of the increase of environmental awareness, the effects of improved agricultural management and of increased productivity.
Method of computation: number of hectares deforested/total number of hectares of forest x 100 (on annual basis).
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)
|
|
Forest area as a proportion of total land area [SDG indicator 15.1.1] (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
• SDG Global Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/
Additional Information:
Forest is defined as land spanning more than 0.5 hectares with trees higher than 5 meters and a canopy cover of more than 10 percent, or trees able to reach these thresholds in situ. It does not include land that is predominantly under agricultural or urban land use. Additional detailed criteria are listed in FAO’s Forest Resource Assessment (FRA) 2020 Terms and Definitions Document available at: http://www.fao.org/3/I8661EN/i8661en.pdf. Total land area refers to the total surface area of a country excluding the area covered by inland waters, such as major rivers and lakes. Total land area of the reference year 2015 is used. For additional inspiration on other possible indicators, 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). |
|
Proportion of land that is degraded over total land area [SDG indicator 15.3.1] (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
SDG Global Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/
Additional Information:
For more information about forest fragmentation and degradation, see FAO's Report on the State of the World's Forests (2020) at www.fao.org/3/ca8642en/online/ca8642en.html#chapter-2_0. For additional inspiration on similar indicators, 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). |
|
Red List Index [SDG indicator 15.5.1] (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
SDG Global Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/.
Additional Information:
The Red List Index is an index that measures changes in aggregate extinction risk across groups of species. It is based on the number of species in each category of extinction risk on The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN 2015) is expressed as changes in an index ranging from 0 to 1 (for more detail on computation method, see https://unstats.un.org/wiki/display/SDGeHandbook/Indicator+15.5.1). Threatened species are those listed on The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species in the categories Vulnerable, Endangered, or Critically Endangered (i.e., species that are facing a high, very high, or extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the medium-term future). The world’s species are impacted by a number of threatening processes, including habitat destruction and degradation, overexploitation, invasive alien species, human disturbance, pollution and climate change. This indicator can be used to assess overall changes in the extinction risk of groups of species as a result of these threats and the extent to which threats are being mitigated. The Red List Index value ranges from 1 (all species are categorized as ‘Least Concern’) to 0 (all species are categorized as ‘Extinct’), and so indicates how far the set of species has moved overall towards extinction. For additional inspiration on similar indicators, 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). |
|
Red List Index [SDG indicator 15.5.1] (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
SDG Global Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/.
Additional Information:
|
|
Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population based on the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES), disaggregated by administrative sub-region, location - urban/peri-urban/rural, household income, composition, sex, age group and education of the household head
(SDG 2.1.2) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Additional Information:
SDG Indicator No. 2.1.2: this indicator provides internationally-comparable estimates of the proportion of the population facing moderate or severe difficulties in accessing food during the reference period. The Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) produces a measure of the severity of food insecurity experienced by individuals or households, based on direct interviews in more than 140 countries worldwide, starting in 2014. Data at the individual or household level is collected by applying an experience-based food security scale questionnaire within a survey. The food security survey module collects answers to questions asking respondents to report the occurrence of several typical experiences and conditions associated with food insecurity. The data is analysed using the Rasch model. Check the methodology-metadata note in the FAO website for additional information. Disaggregation by "composition" includes for example presence and number of small children, members [Raw score (0-8), with lower raw scores corresponding to less severe food insecurity]. |
|
Prevalence of malnutrition (weight for height >+2 or
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline analyses of employment data to be commissioned by the intervention
Additional Information:
The term "malnutrition" addresses 3 broad groups of conditions: undernutrition, which includes wasting (low weight-for-height), stunting (low height-for-age) and underweight (low weight-for-age); micronutrient-related malnutrition, which includes micronutrient deficiencies (a lack of important vitamins and minerals) or micronutrient excess; and overweight, obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases (such as heart disease, stroke, diabetes and some cancers).      Â
Method of Computation:Â the prevalence of these forms of malnutrition is calculated by measuring the presence of malnutrition in a sample of the population selected randomly, then dividing the number of people with that particular form of malnutrition by the number of people in whom it was measured.
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)
|
Result | Indicator(s) |
Specific Objective - Outcome: 1. Improved / maintained / restored equitable access to and use of essential services according to international human rights standards |
Proportion of total government spending on essential services (education, health and social protection) (SDG 1.a.2)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
SDG Global Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. Data
providers: National Statistical Offices. Data compilers: ILO
Additional Information:
SDG Indicator No. 1.a.2. Metadata for this indicator is not yet available.
See the https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information.
|
Proportion of population living in households with access to basic services, disaggregated by administrative sub-region, location - urban/peri-urban/rural, sex, age group, formal/informal settlements (SDG 1.4.1)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
SDG Global Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. Data
providers: National Statistical Offices. Data compilers: ILO
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.Â
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).
|
|
Equity of public resource use rating, according to the World Bank's Country Political and Institutional Assessment (CPIA)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
ILO STAT, https://ilostat.ilo.org/data/
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.
|
|
Building human resources rating, according to the World Bank's Country Political and Institutional Assessment (CPIA)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
National statistics and human rights reports
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.
|
|
Distribution of essential services to identity groups relative to their percentage of the total population, disaggregated by identity group, administrative sub-region, and location - urban/peri-urban/rural
(Percentage)
Data Source:
• http://www.fao.org/publications/sofo/2016/en/
• Country level statistics on forests and deforestation
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.).
|
|
Percentage of the population satisfied with essential service delivery (disaggregated by population group, age, sex, and location - urban/peri-urban/rural) (OPSYS core inidcator)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys or expert assessments to be commissioned by the intervention
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)? |
|
Number of beneficiaries directly benefiting from the social protection systems offered by government institutions supported by the EU-funded intervention, disaggregated by sex, age, disadvantaged group, type of system (nationally-owned or led shock-resistant)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
WHS: World Health Statistics (http://www.who.int/gho/publications/world_health_statistics/
en/)
Additional Information:
Please specify the type of services received and target participants in the local context.
|
|
Existence of 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 (SDG 5.6.2)
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline expenditure report analyses to be commissioned by the intervention
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. Â 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").
|
|
Proportion of women of reproductive age (aged 15–49 years) who have their need for family planning satisfied with modern methods, disaggregated by marital status, income level, age, administrative sub-region, and location - urban/peri-urban/rural (SDG 3.7.1) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
• SDG Global Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/ • Data providers: Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS), the Reproductive Health Surveys (RHS), and the Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS), survey databases (e.g., the Integrated Household Survey Network (IHSN) database), SDG national reporting platforms, Country Reporting on Indicators for the Goals (CRING)) and information from UNFPA field offices
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. NB: this SDG indicator does not foresee disaggregation. See https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information. |
|
Percentage of births attended by a skilled health professional (SDG 3.1.2) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
• SDG Global Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/ • WHO http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.home
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) |
|
Proportion of children under one year old fully immunised (DTP3), disaggregated by sex, age group, ethnicity, type of treatment
(Percentage)
Data Source:
• Databases of national ministries
• Data owned by other donors and international agencies (e.g. UNDP, WHO, UNICEF)
• Data from the inter-agency UN-Water/ Monitoring Water and Sanitation in 2030 Agenda for SDG: http://www.unwater.org/ (inter-agency)
• Household surveys including DHS, MICS, LSMS, World Bank, UNICEF and UNDP, the censuses and administrative data.
• SDG Global Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. Data providers: UN-Habitat and United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD). Data compilers: (UN-Habitat, UNEP, The World Bank, AfDB, IDB, EBRD and ADB) and bilateral donors (JICA, GDZ, etc.)
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 interventionÂ
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Nutrition" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
|
Extent to which the position of conflict-affected population and IDPs is addressed by national education sector plans
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
World Bank Open Data platform, https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=country-policy-and-i…. NB: Myanmar, Somalia and Tuvalu are not covered.
Additional Information:
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Education" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
|
Out-of-school rate for children & young people in crisis and conflict-affected environments, disaggregated by sex, age group, ethnicity, migration status (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
UIS, national statistics, EMIS, Education Cluster, UNHCR
Additional Information:
Please specify in the indicator how "young people" are defined in the given country (or what definition will be followed). |
|
Proportion of IDPs and/or refugees attending school, disaggregated by sex, age group, ethnicity
(Percentage)
Data Source:
World Bank Open Data platform, https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=country-policy-and-i…. NB: Myanmar, Somalia and Tuvalu are not covered.
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)
|
|
Participation rate in organized learning (one year before the official primary entry age), disaggregated by sex (SDG 4.2.2)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys of local administrations (or households) to be conducted by the intervention
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.
|
|
Participation rate of youth and adults in formal and non-formal education and training in the previous 12 months, disaggregated by age sex (SDG 4.3.1)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
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.
|
|
Proportion of youth (aged 15–24 years) not in education, employment or training, disaggregated by sex and age (SDG 8.6.1) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
SDG Global Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. Data providers: National Statistical Offices. Data compilers: ILO
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"). Computation method: See the https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information. |
|
Proportion of population using safely managed drinking water services, disaggregated by urban/rural (SDG 6.1.1) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
• SDG Global Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/ • WHO - Global Health Observatory Data, http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.home
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: 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) |
|
Proportion of population using safely managed sanitation services, disaggregated by rural/urban (SDG 6.2.1a) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
SDG Global Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. Data providers: National statistics offices, Ministries of water, sanitation, health, environment. Regulators of water and sanitation services. Data compilers: WHO/UNICEF;
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). |
|
Proportion of population using an improved sanitation facility including a hand-washing facility with soap and water, disaggregated by rural/urban (SDG 6.2.1b)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
SDG Global Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. Data providers: Databases of national ministries, department and agencies. Data compilers: UNFPA with inputs from partner international agencies.Â
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)
|
|
Prevalence of stunting [height for age
(Percentage)
Data Source:
• WHO-UNICEF estimates (http://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/globalsummary/timeseries/ts…)
• UNICEF - MICS5 http://mics.unicef.org/
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.
|
|
Percentage of national budget allocated and/or spent on nutrition-specific or nutrition-sensitive actions
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Analysis to be commissioned by the Action
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)
|
|
Proportion of population with access to electricity, disaggregated by total, urban and rural access rates (SDG 7.1.1) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
• SDG Global Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/ • Household surveys (and occasionally censuses), including: Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) and Living Standards Measurement Surveys (LSMS), Multi-Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS), the World Health Survey (WHS), other nationally developed and implemented surveys, including those by various government agencies (for example, ministries of energy and utilities).
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. |
|
Country score for the extent to which governments are bound by legislature according to the World Justice Project
(Numeric)
Data Source:
UIS, UNHCR, Global Education Cluster, EMIS
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.Â
|
|
Percentage of the population reporting that their human rights and fundamental freedoms are protected by law and institutions, including through legal mechanisms allowing to redress abuses, disaggregated by sex, age group, administrative sub-region and location - urban/peri-urban/rural
(Percentage)
Data Source:
SDG Global Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. Data providers: Ministries of Education and/or National Statistical Offices. Data compilers: UNESCO Institute for Statistics
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.
|
|
Country score according to the OHCHR Universal Human Rights Index (UHRI) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
SDG Global Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. Data providers: National human rights institution. Data compilers: United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR, https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/Pages/UniversalHumanRightsIndexDatabase.aspx)
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). |
|
Existence of independent national human rights institutions in compliance with the Paris Principles (SDG 16.a.1)
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
SDG Global Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. Data providers: Ministries of Education and/or National Statistical Offices. Data compilers: UNESCO Institute for Statistics
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.Â
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.
|
|
Number of special rapporteurs' visits and visits of other human rights treaty bodies
(Numeric)
Data Source:
• WHO - Global Health Observatory Data - http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.homeÂ
• UNICEF- https://data.unicef.org/topic/water-and-sanitation/sanitation/         …;• SDG Global Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/
• UN Population data http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Excel-Data/population.htm (using the "estimates" sheet. Where it is necessary
• WHO/UNICEF JMP -  global data on drinking water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH).- https://washdata.org/
Additional Information:
|
|
Number of national reports to human rights treaty bodies
(Numeric)
Data Source:
• SDG Global Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/                                   • World Bank https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.STA.STNT.ZS
For the majority of countries, nationally representative household surveys constitute the data source.  For a limited number of countries data from surveillance systems is used if sufficient population coverage is documented (about 80%). For both data sources, the child’s height and weight measurements have to be collected following recommended standard measuring techniques (WHO 2008).
• Data providers: ministries of health, national offices of statistics or national institutes of nutrition.
• Data compilers: UNICEF, WHO, World Bank
Additional Information:
If report(s) are produced with support of the EU-funded intervention, this indicator is more appropriate at output level.
|
|
Proportion of ever-partnered women and girls aged 15 years and older subjected to physical, sexual or psychological violence by a current or former intimate partner in the previous 12 months, by form of violence and by age (SDG 5.2.1)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
National budget information
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 […]â€. 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.
|
|
Proportion of women and girls aged 15 years and older subjected to sexual violence by persons other than an intimate partner in the previous 12 months, by age and place of occurrence (SDG 5.2.2)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
World Justice Project (https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/research-and-data/wjp-rule-law…)
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 […]â€. 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.
|
Result | Indicator(s) |
Specific Objective - Outcome: 2. Responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making promoted |
Extent to which national law or constitution guarantees the right to information (SDG 16.10.2)
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
This is a sub-indicator for the SDG Indicator No. 16.10.2 on the "Number of countries that adopt and implement constitutional, statutory and/or policy guarantees for public access to information". The methodology for this indicator is available at:https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/?Text=&Goal=16&Target=16.10.
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Democracy" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
Percentage of people who report that they are leaders or active members of a voluntary association or community group (disaggregated by gender, age, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, disability status, administrative sub-region, and location - urban/peri-urban/rural) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Afrobarometer survey reports for some countries, otherwise baseline and endline surveys to be commissioned by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
|
|
Percentage of people who report that they attended a community meeting in the last 12 months (disaggregated by gender, age, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, disability status, administrative sub-region, and location - urban/peri-urban/rural)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
SDG Global Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. Data providers: National human rights institution. Data compilers: Â United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA) of the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI).
Additional Information:
|
|
Country score for the extent to which freedom of assembly and association are effectively guaranteed, according to the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index
(Numeric)
Data Source:
OHCHR reports
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.Â
|
|
Extent to which the legal and regulatory framework ensures freedom of association without discrimination
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Project M&E system, government reports/documents
Additional Information:
The indicator assesses the level to which a legal framework ensures the freedom of association without discrimination.
|
|
Status of legal provisions outlining mechanisms/principles of transparency and openness in the security system
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
SDG Global Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. Data providers: National Statistical Offices (in most cases) or line ministries/other government agencies that have conducted national surveys on violence against women and girls. Data compilers: UN Women, UNICEF, UNSD, WHO, UNFPA
Â
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)
|
|
Budget allocated / executed to independent oversight bodies with a security sector mandate (in EUR)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
SDG Global Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. Data providers: National Statistical Offices (in most cases) or line ministries/other government agencies that have conducted national surveys on violence against women and girls. Data compilers: UN Women, UNICEF, UNSD, WHO, UNFPA
Â
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)
|
|
Status of an independent oversight body with a security sector mandate (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Government/parliamentary decision on the establishment of an independent body with a security sector mandate SSU
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) |
|
Status of legal provisions / regulations defining the independence of the system of command and control for police and military
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
SDG Global Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. First data collection foreseen by OHCHR in 2019. May require baseline and endline assessments to be conducted by the EU-funded intervention.
Additional Information:
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Security Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
|
Ratio of investigators employed by the independent oversight bodies compared to the number of police officers
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Afrobarometer survey reports for some countries, otherwise baseline and endline surveys to be commissioned by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Security Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
|
Number of confirmed cases where civilian control was not properly exercised
(Numeric)
Data Source:
WJPÂ
(https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/research-and-data/wjp-rule-law…)
Additional Information:
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Security Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
|
Status of laws/regulations determining standards of prosecution processes, evidence collections and detention are in line with international standards
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments to be commissioned by the EU-funded interventionÂ
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)
|
|
Corruption perception index according to Transparency International
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Primary (law) and secondary (expert analysis) sources of data:
• Legal documents developed/updated with support of the EU-funded interventionÂ
• Text of the law. An expert analysis may also need to be commissioned by the project to assess the stated provisions
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. Â
It reveals that the continued failure of most countries to significantly control corruption is contributing to a crisis in democracy around the world.
|
|
Number of Government officials who are sanctioned for misconduct, disaggregated by sex
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Government budget document SSU
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.Â
|
|
Status of internal inspection and/or audit services within the individual security institutions
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Laws and regulations
Baseline and endline expert assessments conducted by the EU-funded intervention
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)
|
|
Percentage of citizens who are [very/fairly] satisfied with the way democracy works in their country, disaggregated by sex, age group, income level, ethnicity, administrative sub-region and location - urban/peri-urban-rural
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Independent oversight body's report on the number of staff employed and Ministry of Interior's report on the number of police officers employedÂ
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?â€
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)
|
|
Number of Government powers that are subject to non-governmental checks
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Oversight bodies' reports, civil society reports
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
|
|
Number of chairs of permanent committees, by age sex and focus of the committee, Lower Chamber or Unicameral (sub-indicator of SDG 16.7.1)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
• Legislation/policies developed/updated with support of the EU-funded interventionÂ
Â
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/).
|
|
Number of chairs of permanent committees, by age sex and focus of the committee, Upper Chamber (sub-indicator of SDG 16.7.1)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Transparency Internationalhttps://www.transparency.org/cpi2018
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/).
|
|
Number of speakers in parliament, by age and sex , Lower Chamber or Unicameral (sub-indicator of SDG 16.7.1)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
World Justice Project (https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/research-and-data/wjp-rule-law…)
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/).
|
|
Number of speakers in parliament, by age and sex, Upper Chamber (sub-indicator of SDG 16.7.1)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Government decision on the establishment of internal inspection/audit services within the individual security institutions.
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/).
|
|
Ratio of the proportion of women in parliament in the proportion of women in the national population with the age of eligibility as a lower bound boundary), Lower Chamber or Unicameral (sub-indicator of SDG 16.7.1)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
• Afrobarometer
• Asian Barometer
• Latinobarómetro
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/).
|
|
Ratio of the proportion of women in parliament in the proportion of women in the national population with the age of eligibility as a lower bound boundary, Upper Chamber (sub-indicator of SDG 16.7.1)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
World Justice Project (https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/research-and-data/wjp-rule-law…)
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/).
|
|
Proportion of population who believe decision-making is inclusive and responsive, by sex, age, disability status and population group (SDG 16.7.2)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
SDG Global Indicators Database: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/
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.Â
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.
|
|
Number of civil society organisations participating in decision making, disaggregated by identity groups (e.g. religion, ethnicity)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
SDG Global Indicators Database: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/
Additional Information:
The indicator is inspired by the Peacebuilding and Statebuilding Indicators (www.pbsbdialogue.org / www.newdeal4peace.org)
|
|
Percentage of members of different identity groups reporting trust in decisions taken by national and local authorities, disaggregated by sex and identity group (e.g. religion, ethnicity) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
• Afrobarometer
Additional Information:
Most barometer surveys will include questions assessing the level of trust in political institutions. For example, the Afrobarometer asks: |
|
Percentage of the population who perceive the overall quality of justice dispensed as good or very good, disaggregated by sex, age group, ethnicity, administrative sub-region and location urban/peri-urban/rural
(Percentage)
Data Source:
SDG Global Indicators Database: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/
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?â€) with proxy questions (i.e. “If you were wrongly accused of a crime, would you expect to be treated justly by the courts?â€, or similar).Â
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)
|
|
Percentage of people who partly or fully agree that courts treat people fairly regardless of their income, ethnicity, national or social origin, sex or religion (disaggregated by sex and other relevant criteria - please specify)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
SDG Global Indicators Database: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/
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?â€
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)
|
|
Number of institutionalized mechanisms for greater engagement by political and civic actors (structural change)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
SDG Global Indicators Database: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/
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.
|
|
Number of public policy proposals designed with the participation of civil society actors over the previous 12 months
(Numeric)
Data Source:
SDG Global Indicators Database: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/
Additional Information:
Please specify the target public policy sector whenever possible.
|
|
Proportion of policies / reforms taking into account recommendations made by civil society actors/ CSOs supported by the EU-funded intervention
(Percentage)
Data Source:
SDG Global Indicators Database: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. Data providers: National Statistical OfficesÂ
Data compiler: UNDP
Â
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)
|
|
Percentage of people who are members of political parties and political NGOs, disaggregated by sex, region and social group
(Percentage)
Data Source:
EU-funded intervention M&E system
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).
|
|
Status of the legal framework for elections in relation to stability and the rule of law / Status of compliance of the legal framework for elections with international standards
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys to be conducted by the EU-funded intervention
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)
|
|
Status of organisational and operational capacity of Electoral Management Bodies (EMB)
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys to be conducted by the EU-funded intervention
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)
|
|
Periodicity of elections
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Terms of Reference (ToR) for the functioning of thematic/sector coordination and consultation mechanisms
Meeting minutes of coordination mechanisms
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)
|
|
Number of complaints, including electoral fraud claims investigated by the appropriate authorities throughout the electoral process (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Election Observation Mission (EOM) reports
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) |
|
Percentage of the population having confidence in the transparency and credibility of the electoral process
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments to be commissioned by the EU-funded interventionÂ
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.
|
|
Level of public satisfaction with the recent electoral process, disaggregated by age, sex and identity group (e.g. religion, ethnicity)
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Progress reports
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.
|
|
Percentage of population having voting rights who participated in national/local elections, disaggregated by sex.
(Alternative formulation: Percentage of the population exercising their right to vote in national/local elections)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
• Administrative data
• Baseline and endline surveys
Additional Information:
|
|
Degree to which media engages in a violence free election campaign
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
• National election laws
• Election Observation Mission (EOM) reports
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.Â
|
|
Extent to which media are freely engaged in the electoral process
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
EOM reports
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"Â
|
|
GERF 1.29a/ SDG 5.5.1a Proportion of seats held by women in (a) national parliaments (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
• Data from National Electoral Commission, parliaments and donors' assistance to electoral process.
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. See the https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information. |
|
GERF 1.29b/ SDG 5.5.1b (GAP III) Proportion of elected seats held by women in (b) deliberative bodies of local government (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
SDG Global Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. Data providers: Administrative data based on electoral records produced by Electoral Management Bodies (which are part of the National Statistical System). Data compilers: UN Women with support of UN Regional Commissions.
Additional Information:
SDG Indicator No. 5.5.1b, definition: the proportion of positions held by women in local government. See the https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information. |
|
Status of quotas for women in decision-making bodies at national and sub-national level (e.g. parliament, regional/provincial/local councils)
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Election Commission public announcement of elections/election calendar
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)
|
|
Proportion of women in managerial positions (SDG 5.5.2) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
SDG Global Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. Data providers: National Statistical offices. Data compilers: ILO (www.ilo.org/ilostat)
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. See the https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information, particularly on the computation method. |
|
Proportion of women who participate (solely or jointly) in decisions about HH income (requires a survey) according to Women's empowerment in agriculture index (IFPRI)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline public perception surveys to be commissioned by the EU-funded intervention
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 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture" sector
|
|
National score in the Women’s empowerment in agriculture index (IFPRI)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline public perception surveys to be commissioned by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
Developed and piloted by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).Â
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)
|
|
Percentage of women participating in electoral process (both standing for elections and registered voting)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
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)
|
|
Number of women or members of underrepresented groups (e.g. ethnic/religious minorities, persons with disabilities) in leadership/managerial / decision-making positions (e.g. campaign managers) within parties
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
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)
|
|
Number of women or members of underrepresented groups (e.g. ethnic/religious minorities, persons with disabilities) included in party electoral lists
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
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)
|
Result | Indicator(s) |
Specific Objective - Outcome: 3. Improved access to affordable justice for all, including to effective and accessible complaint and redress mechanisms at national and local level, as well as access to information |
GERF 1.21 World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) Voice and Accountability Score (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
World Bank Open Data platform, https://databank.worldbank.org/
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). |
GERF 1.20 World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) Rule of Law Score [NDICI-Global Europe] (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
• World Wide Governance Reports (https://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/)
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). |
|
Performance in factor 2 of the World Justice Project Rule of Law index: Absence of corruption.
Indicators:
a) Government officials in the executive branch do not use public office for private gain;
b) Government officials in the judicial branch do not use public office for private gain;
c) Government officials in the police and military do not use public office for private gain;
d) Government officials in the legislative branch do not use public office for private gain.
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments of media reports to be commissioned by the EU-funded interventionÂ
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).Â
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).Â
• 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.
|
|
Number of war criminals prosecuted, disaggregated by sex
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments of media reports to be commissioned by the EU-funded interventionÂ
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.
|
|
Average score of expert perception on the protection of the rights of defendants and victims
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Regulatory documents on the election of members for the given body
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?â€. 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)
|
|
Average expert assessment score on whether judges impose different punishments for the same type of crime based on a defendant’s or victim’s personal or ethnic characteristics
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys commission by EU-funded interventionÂ
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?â€
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)
|
|
Percentage of justice sector experts reporting that free legal assistance is often or very often available to indigent people accused of serious crimes at all stages of proceedings against them (disaggregated by sex of respondent) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline expert surveys to be conducted by the EU-funded intervention
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. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Justice Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators) |
|
Annual public budget allocated to legal aid
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Developed and piloted by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
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)
|
|
Percentage of justice sector experts reporting that lega representation is generally available to defendants during criminal proceedings (disaggregated by sex)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
• Election Commission Records
• Election Observation Mission (EOM) reports
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?â€
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?â€
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)
|
|
Proportion of crime complaints that are investigated (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Administrative data of the Ministry of Interior to be requested by the EU-funded intervention at the beginning and end of implementation
Additional Information:
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Security Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators) |
|
Percentage of citizens who believe security sector institutions serve their interests, disaggregated by sex, religion, ethnicity, income – or proxy such as neighbourhood of residence
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments to be commissioned by the EU-funded interventionÂ
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)
|
|
Percentage of population who express confidence in the security actors, disaggregated by sex, religion, ethnicity, income – or proxy such as neighbourhood of residence (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
• Public perception survey (national or local) to be conducted by the project. The survey needs to be implemented at least twice: at the beginning and end of project implementation
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) |
|
Proportion of victims who report crimes to the police, disaggregated by sex, disability status, ethnicity, religion and age
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments to be commissioned by the Action
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)
|
|
Unsentenced detainees as a proportion of overall prison population (SDG 16.3.2) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
SDG Global Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. UNODC (www.unodc.org)
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 See https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information. |
|
Country score for the extent to which people can access and afford civil justice, according to the WJP indicator 7.1
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
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.
|
|
Country score for due process of the law and rights of the accused, according to the WJP indicator 8.7
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
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.
|
|
Percentage of people who fully or partly agree that judges and prosecutors are generally respectful of the rights of defendants and victims, disaggregated by gender, age, religion, ethnicity, disability status, and sexual orientation
(Percentage)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
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?â€
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.
|
|
Percentage of people who fully or partly agree that courts treat people fairly regardless of their income, race, national or social origin, gender or religion, disaggregated by gender, age, religion, ethnicity, disability status, and sexual orientation
(Percentage)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
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?â€
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.
Â
|
|
Percentage of people who fully or partly agree that the public believes that prosecution decisions are made in a fair, efficient and effective manner, disaggregated by gender, age, religion, ethnicity, disability status, and sexual orientation (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys to be commissioned by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
Public perception of the public prosecution: Whether the public believes that prosecution decisions are made in a fair, efficient and effective manner. |
|
Percentage of the population who report that police is effective in controlling vigilantism (or preventing citizens from seek justice/redress by their own), disaggregated by sex
(Percentage)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
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?â€Â
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.
|
|
Level of respect of international human rights law by police, military forces and intelligence forces
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
Does the police, military forces and intelligence forces respect the international human rights law? Â Monitoring this indicator could examine if:Â
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.
|
|
Country score for the extent to which the criminal adjudication system is timely and effective, according to the WJP indicator 8.2
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
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.
|
|
Country score for the extent to which the criminal justice system is impartial, according to the WJP indicator 8.4
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
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.
|
|
Status of complaint mechanisms for public service provision and government performance
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
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.
|
|
Percentage of judges and prosecutors who are women
(Percentage)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
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)
|
|
Percentage of cases of sexual and gender based violence referred, investigated and sentenced (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Administrative data (police and health services), household surveys, document review (civil society)
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. See https://www.pbsbdialogue.org/en/ for additional information. |
|
Proportion of positions held by representatives of the different sexes in the security sector public institutions, compared to the government average
(Percentage)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
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)
|
|
Extent to which the right to life and security of the person is effectively guaranteed
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Security Sectors Ministries' reports and documentation
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, Â abusive treatment, or violence.
|
|
Status of a Public Expenditure Tracking Survey (PETS) in FNS&SA subsectors
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
At least two rounds of expert survey as part of the project M&E system
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)
|
|
Status of Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) for FNS&SA
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
At least two rounds of expert surveys as part of the project M&E system
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)
|
|
Exitent of anti-corruption reform for national and sub-national institutions
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Budget data provided by the government, at the beginning and end of intervention
Additional Information:
|
|
Extent of country compliance with the International Standards on Combating Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism and Proliferation by the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF) and its recommendations
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline expert surveys to be conducted by the EU-funded intervention
Â
Additional Information:
|
|
Compliance with the requirements of the IMF Extended Credit Facility (ECF)
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
• Public perception survey (national or local) to be conducted by the project. The survey needs to be implemented at least twice: at the beginning and end of project implementation
Additional Information:
|
|
Percentage of people who partly or fully agree that judges are able to make decisions without direct or indirect interference by Government or politicians, disaggregated by sex
(Percentage)
Data Source:
• Household (national or local) to be conducted by the project. The survey needs to be implemented at least twice: at the beginning and end of project implementation
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?â€
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)
|
|
Number of people who received public representation free of charge (disaggregated by sex, age, disability status, and type of case: civil, criminal or administrative) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Ministry of Justice reports to be requested by the EU-funded intervention
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. |
|
Average score of expert perception on the availability of interpreter (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline expert surveys to be conducted by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
UN Rule of Law indicators (45): How available are the services of interpreters (e.g. for criminal, civil, administrative procedures) |
|
Proportion of requests for legal assistance and free interpreters being met (criminal and civil proceedings) annually
(Percentage)
Data Source:
World Justice Project Rule of Law index (https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/research-and-data/wjp-rule-law…)
Additional Information:
|
|
Average number of days required to enforce judgement
(Numeric)
Data Source:
World Justice Project Rule of Law index (https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/research-and-data/wjp-rule-law…)
Additional Information:
|
Result | Indicator(s) |
Specific Objective - Outcome: 4. Increased social cohesion and social inclusion of communities and societies |
Number of incidences of physical, psychological or sexual violence reported by the target population (resident/host communities and displaced persons) to competent authorities, disaggregated by displacement status
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys to be commissioned by the EU-funded interventionÂ
Additional Information:
Target population should include not only displaced persons but also members of resident/host communities (or other groups, depending on the focus).
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Forced Displacement" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
Percentage of people thinking violence is not a mean to reach political objectives and are against the support to violent groups, disaggregated by sex
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys to be commissioned by the EU-funded interventionÂ
Additional Information:
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Countering Violent Extremism" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
|
Territorial coverage of police and state security actors vs percentage coverage by non-state armed groups (km2, or number of districts/communes)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline expert surveys to be conducted by the EU-funded intervention
Â
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)
|
|
Existence of local peace-oriented structures to provide security services
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
World Justice Project Rule of Law index as referenced above.Â
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)
|
|
Existence of locally-based organisations that contribute to effective dialogue with central authorities and security actors
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
World Justice Project (https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/research-and-data/wjp-rule-law…)
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)
|
|
Perception of population of the effectiveness of non-violent mechanism for dispute resolution, disaggregated by sex
(Percentage)
Data Source:
World Justice Project (https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/research-and-data/wjp-rule-law…)
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.
|
|
Number of intra-religious/inter-religious group conflicts in target areas, disaggregated by type of conflict and location - urban/peri-urban/rural
(Numeric)
Data Source:
World Justice Project (https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/research-and-data/wjp-rule-law…)
Additional Information:
|
|
Number of conflicts between and among displaced and host communities
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Public sector administrative data to be requested and analysed by the project at least twice during the implementation period
Additional Information:
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Forced Displacement" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
|
Percentage of host/resident community members who would welcome forcibly displaced persons to stay in their city/village permanently, disaggregated by sex, age and cause of displacement
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Analysis of administrative data to be provided by the line ministry/ies, at the beginning and end of the intervention. If administrative data is not available, the intervention should commission surveys (at the beginning and end of implementation), which could be based on a sample of departments/ministries (depending on the available funding) where staffing characteristics will be compared
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)
|
|
Number of political refugees and internally displaced persons due to conflict and violence (disaggregated by sex, age)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
World Justice Project (https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/research-and-data/wjp-rule-law…)
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
|
|
Number of persons (e)migrating, disaggregated by sex, age and cause of displacement
(Numeric)
Data Source:
National PFM plan documentation
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)
|
|
Proportion of the target population (resident/host communities and displaced persons) in urban areas living in slums, informal settlements or inadequate housing, disaggregated by displacement status (adapted from SDG 11.1.1) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
SDG Global Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. For primary reporting, national data provider (especially the Statistical agencies) will play an important role of generation of data through the census and surveys. The project may also need to commission baseline and final studies to obtain data, especially with relevant disaggregation.
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) |
|
Performance in pillar 8 of the Positive Peace Index: Acceptance of the Rights of Others.
Indicators:
a) Empowerment index;
b) group grievance index;
c) Gender inequality index
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) document for FNS&SA
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).Â
|
|
Gender equality rating, according to the World Bank's Country Political and Institutional Assessment (CPIA) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
World Bank Open Data platform, https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=country-policy-and-institutional-assessment. NB: Myanmar, Somalia and Tuvalu are not covered.
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. |
|
Percentage of social decision making roles held by women and youth
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments to be conducted by the EU-funded intervention, civil society and government reports
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.Â
|
|
Country score for equal treatment and absence of discrimination, according to the World Justice Project indicator 4.1
(Numeric)
Data Source:
FATF recommendations: (http://www.fatf-http://www.fatf-gafi.org/publications/methodsandtrends/…)
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
|
|
Country score for the extent to which civil justice is free from discrimination, according to the World Justice Project indicator 7.2
(Numeric)
Data Source:
IMF Extended Credit Facility (ECF): (https://www.imf.org/en/About/Factsheets/Sheets/2016/08/02/21/04/Extende…)
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
|
|
Percentage of citizens who say that they have access to and are willing to use traditional, customary, or informal systems of justice to resolve criminal disputes (disaggregated by gender, age, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, disability status, administrative sub-region, and location - urban/peri-urban/rural) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys to be conducted by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
Based on the Measuring Progress in Conflict Environments (MPICE) Framework. |
|
Percentage of population who perceive they have been treated fairly by the formal court system in the past and expect to be treated fairly in the future (disaggregated by gender, age, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, disability status, administrative sub-region, and location - urban/peri-urban/rural) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys to be conducted by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
Based on the Measuring Progress in Conflict Environments (MPICE) Framework. |
|
Proportion of population reporting having personally felt discriminated against or harassed in the previous 12 months on the basis of a ground of discrimination prohibited under international human rights law, disaggregated by grounds of discrimination, sex and disability status (SDG 10.3.1) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Global SDG Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. Data providers: National Statistical Offices. Data compilers: OHCHR (www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Indicators/Pages/HRIndicatorsIndex)
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.). See the https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information. |
|
Extent to which minority groups and disenfranchised population enjoy guarantees for human rights and fundamental freedoms
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline expert surveys to be conducted by the EU-funded intervention
Â
Additional Information:
The indicator is taken from Measuring Progress in Conflict Environment-MPICE, a metric framework.
|
|
Percentage of [stakeholders] in [place] that have [changed their strategies to include / discussed with their colleagues or peers about / published stories] directly or indirectly countering hate speech against [population group] (disaggregated by type of stakeholder, sex, age, administrative sub-region, location - urban/peri-urban/rural, religion, ethnicity)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Prison statistics (monthly/quarterly/ annually collected by prison records unit and prison case management system
Additional Information:
Please make the indicator more specific in line with the local context and data needs.
|
|
Proportion of stakeholders (local media, police, civil society organisations, students, etc.) that are aware about the problem of hate speech towards [population group]
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Administrative data from the government
Additional Information:
Please make the indicator more specific in line with the local context and data needs.
|
|
Number of incidents of hate crime designated as such (disaggregated by gender, age, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, administrative sub-region, and location - urban/peri-urban/rural) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Police records or baseline and final surveys conducted by the intervention
Additional Information:
|
Result | Indicator(s) |
Specific Objective - Outcome: 5. Enhanced adaptability, diversification, gender responsiveness and inclusivity of economic systems, including in the face of demographic pressures |
Country score for pillar 7 of the Positive Peace Index: Equitable Distribution of Resources. Country score on indicators:
a) Inequality-adjusted life expectancy;
b) Social mobility;
c) Poverty gap
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Police records or baseline and final surveys of displaced and host communities if the EU-funded intervention has sufficient funding
Additional Information:
The pillar measures the level to which all sectors of society have access to the resources available in a country. Peaceful countries tend to ensure equity in access to resources such as education, health and, to a lesser extent, equity in income distribution.
a) The HDI life expectancy index adjusted for inequality scores countries based on both average life expectancy and the degree of inequality in life expectance between groups (Source PPI, data source UNDP HDI).Â
b) Measures the potential for upward social mobility based on the degree to which either merit or social networks determine an individual’s success (Source PPI, data source IPD)
c) The mean shortfall from the poverty line at $2 per day PPP (counting the nonpoor as having zero shortfall, expressed as a % of the poverty line - Source PPI, data source World Bank).Â
|
Country's status in terms of economic fragility according to the OECD Fragility Framework (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
OECD States of Fragility Report, www.oecd.org/dac/conflict-fragility-resilience/listofstateoffragilityreports.htm
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. |
|
Economic management cluster average, according to the World Bank's Country Political and Institutional Assessment (CPIA)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Public perception surveys to be commissioned by the EU-funded intervention
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.
|
|
Proportion of companies that report facing non-tariff measures related obstacles to trade
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention
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)
|
|
Number of new businesses/start-ups created as a result of support provided by the EU-funded intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline expert studies/mappings conducted by the EU-funded interventionÂ
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)
|
|
Number of jobs created as a result of support provided by the EU-funded intervention (EU RF 2.11)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline expert studies/mappings conducted by the EU-funded interventionÂ
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
|
|
Extent to which business environment reforms supported by the EU-funded intervention are implemented by the government (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Government official documents, and expert analysis of laws, regulations and procedures (at least twice as part of intervention M&E)
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) |
|
Number of firms with access to financial services, disaggregated by type of service (access to loans, guarantees, banking services etc.), modalities (electronic or face to face), user type disaggregated by sex, age
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys to be conducted by the EU-funded intervention
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)
|
|
World Bank Doing Business "getting credit" score
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Police reports - Faith groups/community leaders reports/Interviews with targeted stakeholders and key informantsÂ
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]Â for further information.
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Business Environment Reform" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
|
Percentage of firms identifying access to finance as a major constraint
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Police records. If data is not available, baseline and endline surveys must be conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention.
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.)Â Â 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)
|
|
Number of individuals with access to financial services, disaggregated by type of service (access to loans, guarantees, banking services etc.), modalities (electronic or face to face), user type disaggregated by sex, age
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Public perceptions survey of resident/host communities to be implemented by the EU-funded intervention at the beginning and end of implementation
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. Â Â
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Business Environment Reform" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
|
Proportion of businesses that had at least one contact with a public official and that paid a bribe to a public official, or were asked for a bribe by those public officials during the previous 12 months (SDG 16.5.2) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Global SDG Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/, World Bank (via the Enterprise Surveys), International Trade Centre, non-tariff measures surveys
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. See https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information. |
|
Global SDG Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/, World Bank (via the Enterprise Surveys), International Trade Centre, non-tariff measures surveys
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC); UNHCR
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.
|
|
Proportion of small-scale industries in total industry value added (SDG 9.3.1)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (iDMC) database: http://www.internal-displacement.org/database/
Additional Information:
SDG Indicator No. 9.3.1: Small-scale industrial enterprises, in the SDG framework also called “small-scale industriesâ€, 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 industriesâ€. 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.
|
|
Average income of small-scale food producers, by sex and indigenous status (SDG 2.3.2) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Global SDG Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. Data providers: National Statistical Offices. Data compilers: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations
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 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. |
|
Extent to which fundamental labour rights are effectively guaranteed
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
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 statusÂ
|
|
Number of labour inspectors per 10,000 employed persons
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
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.
|
|
Number of occupational injuries (per 100,000 employees), by sex, outcome (fatal or non-fatal) and migrant status
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
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.Â
|
|
Existence of a developed and operationalized national strategy for youth employment, as a distinct strategy or as part of a national employment strategy (SDG 8.b.1)
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
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. Â
• 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: Â
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.Â
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. Â
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.
|
|
Extent to which the legal framework (including customary law) guarantees women’s equal rights to land ownership and/or control (SDG 5.a.2)
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
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. Â
Â
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.Â
Â
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.Â
See https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information.
|
|
Proportion of total adult population with secure tenure rights to land, (a) with legally recognized documentation, and (b) who perceive their rights to land as secure, disaggregated by sex and type of tenure (SDG 1.4.2)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
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.Â
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.Â
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.
|
Result | Indicator(s) |
Specific Objective - Outcome: 6. More gender-responsive, inclusive, climate- and conflict-sensitive and sustainable management of land, natural resources and ecosystems |
CO2 emission per unit of value added avoided or reduced (T CO2/USD) (EU RF 2.21: Greenhouse gas emissions, GHG avoided with EU support - in tonnes CO2eq) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=2&series=EN.ATM.CO2E.KD.GD&country= WB (World Development Indicators) reports country level data (derived from original data sources from IEA and UNIDO). Data on the emissions avoided has to be calculated at the Intervention level
Additional Information:
CO2 emission per unit of value added is a ratio indicator between the carbon emissions and the value added of an economy (or a given sector). As such, this indicator can be calculated at country level or by sector. Carbon emission per unit of value added is a universal indicator for measuring the impact of industrial production on environment. It captures the intensity of energy use, energy efficiency of production technology and most importantly use of fossil fuels. According to the UNIDO definition used for SDG Indicator No. 9.4.1, carbon emission is estimated from the data on energy consumption. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Green Economy" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators) Possible match with EU RF 2.21 (Greenhouse gas emissions, GHG avoided with EU support - in tonnes CO2eq) |
Percentage of agricultural and pastoral ecosystems where sustainable land and water management practices have been introduced (hectares) (EU RF 2.23)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
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")
|
|
Proportion of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agriculture (SDG 2.4.1)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
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).Â
• 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.Â
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.
|
|
Percentage of smallholders practising sustainable agriculture (e.g. conservation agriculture, Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) approaches, etc.), disaggregated by sex, type of sustainable agriculture practice (EU RF 2.3) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Techniques (WOCAT) by FAO: https://www.wocat.net/en/knowledge-base.html
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: 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). |
|
Number of hectares of land covered by improved rangeland management structures and practices
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
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: Â 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)
|
|
Number of hectares of land with agro-forestry systems
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys or assessments to be conducted by the EU-funded intervention
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)
|
|
Consumption per head of wood and products derived from wood
(Numeric)
Data Source:
World Justice Project Rule of Law index (https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/research-and-data/wjp-rule-law…)
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.Â
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).
|
|
Status of [*policy/ framework/ regulation reform] on the land administration and tenure system
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
World Justice Project Rule of Law index (https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/research-and-data/wjp-rule-law…)
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)
|
|
Number of hectares where land is managed using a) improved technologies and b) improved management practices
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments to be commissioned by the EU-funded interventionÂ
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)
|
|
Number of hectares under agriculture and pastoral ecosystems where sustainable land management practices have been introduced with EU support (EU RF 2.23)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
Sustainable land management practices encompass a vast array of agricultural techniques. Although non exhaustive, the main practices to be considered are:Â
• Rational use of mineral fertilisers
• Integrated pest management
• Improved soil organic matter
•Grassland development, improvement and rehabilitation
•Management of crop rotationÂ
• 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).Â
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
|
|
Value of natural resources purchased and marketed by multinational corporations without payment of customs duties
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys to be conducted by the intervention
Additional Information:
|
|
Annual amount of natural resources exported, in tones
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
|
|
Proportion of total agricultural population with ownership or secure rights over agricultural land, disaggregated by sex (SDG 5.a.1 (a))
(Percentage)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
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.
|
|
Proportion of important sites for terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity that are covered by protected areas, by ecosystem type (SDG 15.1.2) (EU RF 2.23) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Global SDG indicators Database, http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. Data providers: Protected area data are compiled by ministries of environment and other ministries responsible for the designation and maintenance of protected areas. Data compilers: UNEP-WCMC and IUCN (http://www.unep-wcmc.org/; http://www.birdlife.org/; http://www.iucn.org/)
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". |
|
GERF 2.8/ EURF 2.22 Marine areas under a) protection and b) sustainable management with EU support (km2) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems - Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention, ROM reviews International organisation data portals and reports - UNEP and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA), https://www.protectedplanet.net/en/thematic-areas/wdpa?tab=WDPA International organisation data portals and reports - Joint Research Centre (JRC), Digital Observatory for Protected Areas, https://dopa.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en
Additional Information:
For more information about the EU RF methodological notes, please see https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/eu-rfi |
|
GERF 2.8/ EURF 2.22 Marine areas under a) protection and b) sustainable management with EU support (km2) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems - Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention, ROM reviews International organisation data portals and reports - UNEP and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA), https://www.protectedplanet.net/en/thematic-areas/wdpa?tab=WDPA International organisation data portals and reports - Joint Research Centre (JRC), Digital Observatory for Protected Areas, https://dopa.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en
Additional Information:
For more information about the EU RF methodological notes, please see https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/eu-rfi |
Result | Indicator(s) |
Specific Objective - Outcome: SO1: Country and regional entities enter into national & transboundary agreements to guide the activities of river basin stakeholders |
Degree of integrated water resources management implementation (SDG 6.5.1)
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention)
Additional Information:
SDG Indicator No. 6.5.1: the indicator is measured in per cent (%) from 0 (implementation not yet started) to 100 (fully implemented) is currently being measured in terms of different stages of development and implementation of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM). The definition of IWRM is based on an internationally agreed definition, and is universally applicable: "a process which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources in order to maximise economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems". The concept of IWRM is measured in 4 main components:
Computation Method:
See https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information. |
Result | Indicator(s) |
Specific Objective - Outcome: 6. More gender-responsive, inclusive, climate- and conflict-sensitive and sustainable management of land, natural resources and ecosystems |
Proportion of fish stocks within biologically sustainable levels (SDG 14.4.1) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
FAO (http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2389e/i2389e00.htm)
Additional Information:
SDG Indicator No. 14.4.1: the indicator measures the sustainability of the world's marine capture fisheries by their abundance. A fish stock of which abundance is at or greater than the level, that can produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) is classified as biologically sustainable. In contrast, when abundance falls below the MSY level, the stock is considered biologically unsustainable. The indicator measures the sustainability of fishery resources very well, and is an end-result measure of Target 14.2. However, its derivation is not only data hungry, but also technically demanding as it needs stock assessment. This is also the reason why there is no data at country level. Computation Method: See https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information. |
Extent of compliance with the standards of Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI)
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
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:Â
- Full Government disclosure of revenues from the extractive industry – coded using Government Finance Statistics (GFS) from the IMF.Â
- 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,...)Â
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).
|
|
Extent of shared understanding (by national authorities and civil society) of natural resources and conflict risks
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
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.
|
|
Extent to which the legal/regulatory framework allows the sustainable use of land, water, and forests; mitigation of the social and environmental impact of extractive activities; and fair allocation of the benefits, burdens, and responsibilities of resource extraction
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
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.
|
|
Existence of a national multi-stakeholder framework/mechanism to monitor and evaluate environmental trends and results, including at local level, with the participation civil society
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
|
|
Number of expropriations executed by the government each year without lawful process and adequate compensation
(Numeric)
Data Source:
World Bank Open Data platform, https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=country-policy-and-i…. NB: Myanmar, Somalia and Tuvalu are not covered.
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.
|
|
Number of reported conflicts between communities over access to water in the last year
(Numeric)
Data Source:
International Trade Centre, non-tariff measures surveys
Â
Additional Information:
|
|
Number of people actively participating in natural resource management committees (including bank account signatory roles), disaggregated by sex and ethnicity
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Studies commissioned by the intervention (at the beginning and end of the intervention)
Additional Information:
Please define what 'actively participating' means in the local context.
|
|
Extent to which the national legal system enables sustainable management of natural resources and ensures that natural resources-based wealth is equitably distributed among population, in accordance with standards respectful of international human rights law
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Studies commissioned by EU-funded intervention (at the beginning and end of the intervention)
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.
|
|
Extent of control of territory containing natural resources by illegal armed groups
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
This indicator should be included in the intervention M&E system and data should be collected and reported upon by the intervention (usually the implementing partner) in the course of the intervention cycle.
Additional Information:
The indicator is inspired by Measuring Progress in Conflict Environment-MPICE, a metric framework.
|
|
Country score for the extent to which law and regulations provide for robust resettlement and rehabilitation procedures in relation to land evictions and relocations
(Numeric)
Data Source:
World Bank [link to http://www.doingbusiness.org/data]
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.â€
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.Â
|
|
Percentage of land compensations based on legal framework in line with international standards
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Enterprise surveys either carried out by the intervention or from alternative sources, e.g. the World Bank Enterprise surveys or national statistics office. At least two estimates are needed one for the baseline and one at the end of the intervention.
Additional Information:
|
|
Existence of 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
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Intervention M&E system
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 .Â
|
|
Number of national constitutional provisions, laws, policies and programs which support Indigenous Peoples’ access to and legal recognition of lands, territories, and natural resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used for subsistence and food production and practices (disaggregated by type)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Vision of Humanity
a) Legatum Institute
b) Heritage Foundation
c) World Bank
Â
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.
|
|
Country score for the extent to which institutional responsibility has been assigned for defining accessibility and adequacy of existing conflict resolution mechanisms
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Global SDG Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. Data providers: National statistical offices (NSOs). Data compilers: United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)
Â
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).Â
|
|
Percentage of people owning and using energy-efficient technologies and low-carbon practices, disaggregated by sex (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments to be commissioned by the EU-funded intervention (using a household survey or existing agricultural department statistics, Agricultural extension records, or similar)
Additional Information:
|
|
Extent of compliance of land and property tenure laws and regulations with the Convention of the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) [or other conventions regarding discrimination against vulnerable populations
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
World Justice Project (https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/wjp-rule-law-index/wjp-rule-la…)
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)
|
|
Proportion of women who participate in decisions about use of productive resources (choice of crops, inputs, timing of cropping, sale/transfer of land) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
FAO - Gender and Land Right Database. http://www.fao.org/gender-landrights-database/en/
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: 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) |
|
Proportion of total adult population with secure tenure rights to land, (a) with legally recognized documentation, and (b) who perceive their rights to land as secure, disaggregated by sex and type of tenure
(SDG 1.4.2)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Reports from the Labour Inspectorate, ILOSTAT: https://ilostat.ilo.org/data/
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.Â
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.Â
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.
|
|
Number of women and men who have secure tenure of land, disaggregate by sex, age, location of land (EU RF 2.3)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Reports from the Labour Inspectorate; SDG global database: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/, ILOSTAT: https://ilostat.ilo.org/data/
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
|
|
Share of women among owners or rights-bearers of agricultural land, by type of tenure
(SDG indicator 5.a.1.b)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
• Global SDG Indicators Database, Data providers: National statistical offices (NSOs). Data providers: National entities (ministries or other government agencies) responsible for development, employment and youth policies. The ILO will maintain a roster of national actors to be involved in the monitoring process.Â
• Data compilers: ILO
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:Â
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)
|
|
Country score according to the Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture index
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Global SDG Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. Relevant agencies: FAO, UN Women, World Bank
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)
|
|
Extent to which the legal framework (including customary law) guarantees women’s equal rights to land ownership and/or control
(SDG 5.a.2)
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Global SDG Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. National data providers:Â
• Statistical agencies – surveys
• Government administrative sources /registries, cadastres
Compilation & reporting at the global level:Â
• UN-Habitat - United Nations Human Settlements Programme
• World BankÂ
Â
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. Â
Â
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.Â
Â
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.Â
See https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information.
|
Result | Indicator(s) |
Specific Objective - Outcome: 7. Improved effectiveness of prevention, preparedness and response to natural and man-made disaster |
Number of countries that have multi-hazard monitoring and forecasting systems (Sendai G2)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline studies to be commissioned by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
The indicator, together with SENDAI indicators G1, G3, 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". G-2 is an indicator representing one of the aforementioned four key elements of the multi-hazard early warning systems (MHEWS), (2) detection, monitoring, analysis and forecasting of the hazards and possible consequences.
Two options for computation of the country score are suggested, from a simpler to a more complex one to reflect the quality/achievement of the system. In either option, the index will be between 1 and 0.Â
a) A simpler methodology calculates a score by country which depends on the existence of a multi-hazard monitoring and forecasting system for each of the major hazards determined by each country. Each country will report in a simple form, hazard by hazard, if there is a monitoring and forecasting system for it (in a binary form, 0 or 1). The score of the country will be the weighted average of the scores for each major hazard. At global level, the score will be the arithmetic average of the country scores, i.e. the sum of all country scores divided by the number of reporting countries.
b) Member States will assess the level of implementation for the monitoring and forecasting system of each of the major hazards, and enter all information in the web-based Sendai Framework Monitor. Member States will assess this level of implementation according to the following weighting:
• Comprehensive implementation (full score): 1.0,
• Substantial implementation, additional progress required: 0.75,
• Moderate implementation, neither comprehensive nor substantial: 0.50,
• Limited implementation: 0.25,
• If there is no implementation or no existence, it will be 0.
This index is more complicated than option a) written above, however, it enables monitoring the improvement in the quality of the system.
In order to calculate in a more objective way the score for each hazard, countries can use sub-indicators with level of implementation or achievement for each of these four elements: monitoring; forecasting; warning messages; process, roles and responsibilities. These sub-indicators are proposed to be considered of equal importance (25% each), thus the score will be calculated by the arithmetic average.
See the Technical Guidance for more details on the computation methods (www.unisdr.org/files/54970_techguidancefdigitalhr.pdf).
|
Existence of national disaster risk reduction strategy in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SDG 1.5.3) (possible match with EU RF 2.19)
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
From FAO:
Land use data from FAO
Sustainable agriculture
Global Strategy to Improve Agricultural and Rural Statistics
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.Â
|
|
Number of people per 100,000 that are covered by early warning information through local governments or through national dissemination mechanisms (Sendai G3)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Project-commissioned studies (at the beginning and end of the Action)
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).
|
|
Number of countries that have accessible, understandable, usable and relevant disaster risk information and assessment available to the people at the national and local levels (Sendai G5)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
http://www.fao.org/forestry/agroforestry/80338/en/
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).
|
|
Proportion of victims of violence in the previous 12 months who reported their victimization to competent authorities or other officially recognized conflict resolution mechanism (SDG 16.3.1)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys to be commissioned  by the EU-funded intervention for the target area (if data is not available)
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)
|
|
Percentage of infrastructure (incl. housing) that is reconstructed within 1 year after a crisis (disaster and/or violent conflict)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Intervention M&E system
Additional Information:
|
|
Percentage of basic services that are regularly functioning within 1 year after disruption due to a crisis (disaster and/or violent conflict), disaggregated by type of service (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Household survey conducted by the EU-funded interventio one year after a crisis
Additional Information:
|
|
Number of measures taken to implement the national disaster risk reduction strategy in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
A score is available for some countries at the Sendai Framework Online Monitoring Tool (target E): https://sendaimonitor.undrr.org/analytics/country-global-target/15/6?regions=1. However, to get the actual number of measures taken will require assessments to be conducted by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
Possible match with EU RF 2.19: 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)". |
|
Proportion of the population at risk beneficiary of measures by implementing the national disaster risk reduction strategy in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction
(Percentage)
Data Source:
• FAO and national research system statisticsÂ
• Intervention M&E system
Additional Information:
|
|
Existence of clear institutional and policy arrangements for climate and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) at national and local level (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments to be commissioned by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
Possible match with EU RF 2.19 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)". |
|
Percentage of national/local budget available/dedicated to climate and DRR institutions/initiatives
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Intervention M&E system
Additional Information:
Value of national/local budget allocated to climate and DRR institutions/initiatives out of the overall State budget
|
|
Proportion of local governments that adopt and implement local disaster risk reduction strategies in line with national disaster risk reduction strategies (SDG 1.5.4)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Government statistics
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).
|
|
Number of countries that adopt and implement national disaster risk reduction strategies in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 (Sendai E1) (SDG 1.5.3)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Government statistics
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.
|
|
Extent to which roles & responsibilities of climate and disaster stakeholders are defined by policy documents
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Global SDG indicators Database, http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/, Data providers: National Statistical Offices. If agricultural surveys are used, the responsible organization will be the Ministry of Agriculture or, more generally, the organization responsible for agricultural surveys at country level. Data compiler: FAO
Â
Additional Information:
|
|
Quality of institutional arrangements for nutrition governance including a multi-sector platform
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Global SDG indicators Database, http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. Data providers: government officials responsible for water resources management in the country, supported by official documentation. E.g. Ministry of Water in coordination with Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Planning, Ministry of Lands and Agriculture, Ministry of Industry and Mining etc. Data compilers: UNEP and UN-Water partners, under GEMI (Integrated Monitoring of Water and Sanitation Related Targets) (http://www.unepdhi.org)
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)
|
Result | Indicator(s) |
Specific Objective - Outcome: 8. Enhanced ownership, gender responsiveness and inclusivity of peacebuilding and conflict prevention processes at local, national and international levels, including systematic participation of women and youth |
Number of ex-combatants that were effectively integrated into their communities after giving up arms, disaggregated by sex, age
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI): https://eiti.org/ Â See also https://eiti.org/countries
Additional Information:
Please add detail to this indicator to define what "effectively integrated" means in the local context, i.e. following a VET course and finding employment, finding a fixed residence, getting psychosocial support, reintegrating into one's family, etc.
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Security Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
Percentage of target population who report positive attitudes towards reintegrated ex-combatants, disaggregated by sex, age
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments to be commissioned by the Intervention
Additional Information:
|
|
Percentage of ex-combatants who report addressing grievances through non-violent channels, e.g. government or traditional resolution, disaggregated by sex, age
(Percentage)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
|
|
Percentage of cases resolved using alternative dispute resolution mechanisms with support of the EU-funded intervention (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
Please specify the type of cases in question and the target locations. |
|
Number of early action policy options implemented on the basis of early warning information (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention
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. |
|
Number of ceasefire violations (if ceasefire in place)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Intervention M&E system
Additional Information:
Please specify the parties in conflict that are to be monitored and the target region.
|
|
Level of confidence of population in the security forces
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
WJP (https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/research-and-data/wjp-rule-law…)
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.Â
|
|
Percentage of community members who declare they trust local dialogue mechanisms and the outcomes of ongoing reconciliation initiatives, disaggregated by sex, age
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline conflict mappings to be conducted by the EU-funded intervention; UN and NGO reports
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
|
|
Percentage of the population reporting that the EU funded intervention is based on local needs and supports conflict prevention and resolution mechanisms, by sex, age
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Committee meeting minutes
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.
|
|
Percentage of population reporting that people's security needs are addressed in the framework of political processes, by sex, ethnic/religious groups, administrative sub-region and location - urban/peri-urban/rural
(Percentage)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
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.
|
|
Percentage of population targeted by EU-funded interventions satisfied with the fairness and effectiveness of the peace process, disaggregated by sex and location - urban/peri-urban/rural (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys/interviews to be commissioned by the intervention and progress reports
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. |
|
Percentage of population targeted by EU funded interventions familiar with the peace process and confident that it will improve tolerance and social interaction among groups that had been party to the conflict, disaggregated by sex, administrative sub-region and location - urban/peri-urban/rural
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments to be conducted by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
Indicator taken from the 2016 IcSP Manual of Indicators Sector 9: Confidence Building, Mediation and Dialogue 9.2 Monitoring of peace processes.
|
|
Existence of local peace-oriented structures to provide security services
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Land Portal:Â https://landportal.org/fr/book/indicator/vggt-16-9
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.
Â
|
|
Percentage of people thinking violence is not a mean to reach political objectives and are against the support to violent groups, disaggregated by sex, age
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Land Portal:https://landportal.org/blog-post/2017/02/vggt-infographic-land-book-now…
Additional Information:
|
|
Existence of a National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
|
|
Status of implementation a National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
|
|
Extent of inclusion of Women, Peace and Security provisions in national gender/women strategies
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
World Bank: Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF), https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/land-governance-assessment-framew…;
Land Portal (land  conflict): https://landportal.org/voc/themes/land-conflicts
Additional Information:
|
|
Extent to which the legal framework (regulatory level) provides for the security forces' obligation to clear battlefields/territory from landmines, unexploded ordnances (UXOs) and explosive remnants of war (ERW)
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments conducted by the EU-funded intervention, government and civil society CEDAW and other reports
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.
|
|
Existence of a coordination institution working at national and local level mandated to clear territory from landmines, unexplosive ordonnances and explosive remnants of war
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
|
|
Extent to which negotiating partners are publicly advocating for peace through promotion of next plausible steps in peace process
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
|
|
Percentage of citizens content with progress of peace process, disaggregated by sex, age
(Percentage)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
|
|
Percentage of target population reporting improved satisfaction with involvement in local political processes (local government response to issues raised, etc.), disaggregated by sex, age
(Percentage)
Data Source:
National data providers:Â
• Statistical agencies – surveys
• Government administrative sources - registries, cadastres
Additional Information:
Please specify in the indicator who is the target population.
|
Result | Indicator(s) |
Specific Objective - Outcome: 9. Enhanced and gender-responsive early warning, early action and response to crisis, disasters and conflicts |
Status of recommendations stemming from the EU Conflict Early Warning System and including EU political, humanitarian and development actors
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
|
Percentage or Number of Programmes carrying out a Do-No-Harm/ Conflict Sensitivity assessment at any stage of the programme management cycle
(Percentage)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
|
|
Existence of a shared analysis of conflict amongst EU actors on which development, peacebuidling and conflict prevention programmes are based (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Conflict analysis final report and recommendations
Additional Information:
|
|
Number of programmes addressing the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
|
|
Extent to which recommendations formulated within the framework of joint conflict analysis or conflict sensitivity assessments by EU actors and its Member States are implemented
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Index developed and piloted by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
Additional Information:
|
|
Extent to which recommendations on conflict sensitivity and resilience formulated within the framework of initiatives coordinated between EU, international and national organisations are implemented
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
|
|
Number of activities which are direct results of joint, shared analysis/assessments (conflict analysis, conflict sensitivity, resilience analysis, EU conflict EWS assessment)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
|
|
Number of EU and intl. stakeholders stating that crisis responses are coordinated effectively among different actors (development, humanitarian, diplomatic, political, military, etc.)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
|
|
Percentage of peace agreements supported successfully according to independent assessment
(Percentage)
Data Source:
• Sendai Indicator G2; G3 & G5.Â
• www.preventionweb.net/sendai-framework/sendai-framework-monitor/indicat… Â
Additional Information:
|
Result | Indicator(s) |
Output: Strengthened capacities for durable solution of issues affecting refugees, IDPs, migrants and host communities (e.g. on issues related to gender equality and women’s empowerment, conflict prevention between host/resident communities and ... |
Number of participants in socio-economic, peacebuilding, recovery, reconstruction activities supported by the EU-funded intervention, disaggregated by sex, age, ethnicity and disability status, administrative sub-region, location - urban/peri-urban/rural, and type of activity attended
(Numeric)
Data Source:
SDG Global Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. Depending on data availability, baseline and endline assessments may need to be commissioned by the EU-funded intervention.
Additional Information:
Indicator inspired by 2016 IcSP Manual Crosscutting theme 3: Mainstreaming Conflict-sensitivity Key topic CC3.1 Addressing immediate conflict risks.Â
|
Number of people benefitting from the clearance, removal and destruction of stockpile of mines, unexploded ordnances (UXOs) and explosive remnants of war (ERW) with support from the EU-funded intervention (disaggregated by sex, age)
(EURF 2.28)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
• Sendai Indicator G2; G3 & G5.Â
• www.preventionweb.net/sendai-framework/sendai-framework-monitor/indicat… Â
Additional Information:
Monitoring and increasing the number of people benefitting from the clearance, removal and destruction of stockpile of mines, unexploded ordnances (UXOs) and explosive remnants of war (ERW).
Data calculation: The indicator is calculated as the number of people directly benefiting from a respective intervention. Only the unique number of persons should be counted over time, and across interventions. In the case of landmine clearance, it may be necessary to calculate the number of persons based on the surface that has been cleared. This may be calculated by using population density figures, preferably of the region in question multiplied by the area of land cleared.
Possible match with EU RF 2.28
|
|
Status of legal framework governing the work of CSOs, including the possibility to receive international funding
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
'Sendai Indicator G5' https://www.preventionweb.net/sendai-framework/sendai-framework-indicators
Additional Information:
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Governance" sector |
|
Number of CSO representatives trained by the EU-funded intervention who increased their knowledge of climate change/forced displacement/ mitigating conflict risks/youth and gender inclusion/ conflict and other early warning systems - disaggregated by sex, ethnicity, disability status
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Global SDG Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. Data providers: National Statistical Offices, Police, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Interior, Prosecutor’s Office. Data compiler: UNODC. Depending on data availability, baseline and endline surveys may need to be conducted by the EU-funded intervention.
Â
Additional Information:
Please adapt the indicator by specifying the training topic relevant for the local context. If monitoring capacity is limited or the context is fragile, this indicator could be simplified to monitor only the number of persons trained (without referring to an increase in knowledge and/or skills). However, in order to ensure the quality of training and the achievement of the desired result, it is recommended to assess the knowledge of participants before and after the intervention whenever possible. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Governance" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
|
Number of members of CSOs trained by the EU-funded intervention who increased their analytical/ advocacy/negotiation skills (including conflict analysis and conflict resolution), disaggregated by sex, age, ethnicity, disability status
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Mapping conducted by the EU-funded intervention one year after a crisis
Additional Information:
If monitoring capacity is limited or the context is fragile, this indicator could be simplified to monitor only the number of persons trained (without referring to an increase in knowledge and/or skills). However, in order to ensure the quality of training and the achievement of the desired result, it is recommended to assess the knowledge of participants before and after the intervention whenever possible. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Governance" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
|
Number of local governance structures set up or strengthened with support of the EU-funded intervention (e.g. village development committees, land committees, local Natural Resource Management, etc.) inclusive of women, minorities and other marginalised groups
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys to be commissioned by the EU-funded interventionÂ
Additional Information:
This indicator denotes the participation of local communities in sustainable development governance (NRM, land and water management, etc.) by counting the number of  structures for local governance set up at different levels.
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)
|
Result | Indicator(s) |
Specific Objective - Outcome: SO5: Customers and users assume responsibilities according to the ‘consumer & polluter pays principles’, with social contingencies |
Proportion of local administrative units with established and operational policies and procedures for participation of local communities in water and sanitation management (SDG 6.b.1)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Government/local budget official documents and report on execution (at the beginning and end of the EU-funded intervention)
Additional Information:
SDG Indicator No. 6.b.1: the indicator assesses the percentage of local administrative units (as defined by the national government) that have an established and operational mechanism by which individuals and communities can meaningfully contribute to decisions and directions about water and sanitation management. Computation Method: The UN-Water Global Analysis and Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking-Water (GLAAS) questionnaire provides information on whether there are "clearly defined procedures in laws or policies for participation by service users (e.g. households) and communities in planning programs". For countries that have data available from the local administrative unit level, they are asked to provide data on the number of local administrative units for which policies and procedures for local participation (i) exist, and (ii) are operational, as well as (iii) the number of local administrative units assessed, and (iv) the total number of units in the country. The indicator is computed as (ii) the number of local admin units with operation policies and procedures for local participation divided by (iv) the total number of local administrative units in the country. See https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information. |
Result | Indicator(s) |
Output: Strengthened capacities for durable solution of issues affecting refugees, IDPs, migrants and host communities (e.g. on issues related to gender equality and women’s empowerment, conflict prevention between host/resident communities and ... |
Number of civil society organisations participating/consulted in the formulation of development policies/programmes, peacebuilding and disaster recovery/reconstruction strategies (including de-mining) with support from the EU-funded intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
• Global SDG Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. Â
• Reports for Sendai Indicator E2, www.preventionweb.net/sendai-framework/sendai-framework-monitor/indicat…
Additional Information:
|
Result | Indicator(s) |
Output: Strengthened capacities of communities and civil society to prevent, mitigate and manage risks, including those related to conflicts, natural hazards, climate change, etc |
Number of CSOs representatives providing services or advocating for the rights of refugees and internally displaced persons in the country with support from the EU-funded intervention (disaggregated by sex)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
• Baseline and endline strategy assessments commissioned by the intervention;Â
• Reports for Sendai Indicator E1, www.preventionweb.net/sendai-framework/sendai-framework-monitor/indicat…;
• Global SDG Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/.
Additional Information:
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Governance" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
Number of CSO and media organization representatives participating in development/amendment of laws and policies on freedom of expression and access to information, with support from the EU-funded intervention, disaggregated by sex, ethnicity
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessment to be commissioned by the intervention
Additional Information:
The EU-funded intervention will directly support the revision or development of policies/laws on freedom of expression and access to information, with the aim of achieving compliance with international standards, such as the Council of Europe and UNESCO recommendations on media freedom and pluralism.
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Democracy" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
|
Level of disaster preparedness of civil society organisations
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessment to be commissioned by the intervention
Additional Information:
Level of capacity achieved as a result of training programmes, through beneficiaries’ statements about their ability to execute their functions without external support. Indicator taken from the "Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace" (IcSP) Intervention type 15.3 Capacity development of CSOs in Sector 15: Natural disaster preparedness and response.Â
|
|
Number of persons equipped with disaster and/or conflict early warning mechanisms with support from the EU-funded intervention, disaggregated by sex, age, ethnicity, type of actor (Civil society, private sector, local and national representatives), country region and social/ethnic group, if relevant
(Numeric)
Data Source:
This indicator will likely require primary data collection through surveys or similar studies, implemented by the EU-funded intervention at the beginning and end of implementation
Additional Information:
This indicator aims to capture if the civil society, private sector, local and national authorities have the necessary skills, resources, organisation to work together and operate the early warning mechanisms. Please make sure to define what an "early warning mechanism" should consist of, and whether it is conflict-related or related to natural disasters, climate change, etc. Â Indicator taken from the "Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace" (IcSP) Intervention type 15.2 Disaster risk mitigation and early warning mechanisms in Sector 15: Natural disaster preparedness and response.Â
|
|
GERF 2.28 Number of grassroots civil society organisations benefitting from (or reached by) EU support (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems - Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
For more information about the EU RF methodological notes please see https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/eu-rfi |
|
Level of understanding among civil society organisations of the legal framework for protection of human rights and access to justice
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline public perception surveys to be commissioned by the intervention
Additional Information:
The indicator monitors whether CSO representatives have absorbed the knowledge and understand how the legal framework for protection of human rights and how to access justice.Â
|
|
Number of policies-recommendations formulated by civil society actors during platform meetings organised with support from EU-funded intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline public perception surveys to be commissioned by the intervention
Additional Information:
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Nutrition" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
|
Proportion of cities with a direct participation structure of civil society in urban planning and management that operate regularly and democratically (SDG 11.3.2)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Progress reports and government reportsÂ
Additional Information:
SDG Indicator 11.3.2: to monitor this indicator fully, it is important to define cities as unique entities and define what constitutes direct participation structures of civil society. Urban planning and management are more clear concepts that UN-Habitat has worked on developing for the last few decades and these are well articulated in the urban agenda documents. This indicator measures the progress and willingness of elected officials, urban managers and planners to integrate resident and civil society participation in urban planning and management at various levels.Â
This Indicator calls for the proportion of cities in the country to be calculated, but at the output level we monitor just the number of cities that the EU supports. The SDG methodology suggests the following scale (1-strongly disagree, 2-disagree, 3-agree, and 4-strongly agree) to measure and test the existence of structures for civil society participation in urban governance and management. These structures are examined through four core elements:
1. Are there structures for civil society participation in urban planning, including design and agreements, that are direct, regular and democratic?
2. Are there structures for civil society participation in local urban budget decision-making, that are direct, regular and democratic?
3. Are there structures for civil society evaluation and feedback on the performance of urban management, that are direct, regular and democratic?
4. Do these structures promote the participation of women, young men and women, and/or other marginalized groups?
Once each of the five (5) categories is evaluated by a single evaluator, the total average score of the single evaluator is computed. The various scores of the evaluators are then averaged to compute the final score for every city.
To determine the proportion of cities with a direct participation structure of civil society in urban planning and management that operates regularly and democratically, a midpoint on the Likert scale of 2.5 will be used. The value of the indicator is the proportion of cities with overall score that is greater than the mid-point.Â
See https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information, including the exact definition of cities.
|
Result | Indicator(s) |
Output: Strengthened capacity of communities and civil society, including women, youth and those living in marginalised/vulnerable situations, to participate and engage in political, social, cultural and economic development processes and in inclusive ... |
Number of initiatives with local community actors and religious leaders providing mentoring and guidance to 'at risk' individuals with support of the EU-funded intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline public perception surveys to be commissioned by the intervention
Additional Information:
Please define the 'at risk' groups in the local context.
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Countering Violent Extremism" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
Number of journalists and editors trained by the EU-funded intervention who increased their knowledge and skills in strategic communication for challenging online and offline hate speech and violent extremist propaganda, disaggregated by sex
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline public perception surveys to be commissioned by the intervention
Additional Information:
Please specify the training topics and target participants in the local context. Â If monitoring capacity is limited or the context is fragile, this indicator could be simplified to monitor only the number of persons trained (without referring to an increase in knowledge and/or skills). However, in order to ensure the quality of training and the achievement of the desired result, it is recommended to assess the knowledge of participants before and after the intervention whenever possible.Â
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Countering Violent Extremism" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
|
Number of non-state actors representatives at national and community level active in preventing and countering Violent Extremism and/or hate speech with support of the EU-funded intervention, disaggregated by sex, type of organisation
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline public perception surveys to be commissioned by the intervention
Additional Information:
This can include civil society organizations, media, religious/community leaders or other relevant actors - please specify the key actors in the local context.
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Countering Violent Extremism" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
|
Percentage of Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW) control actions in the country coordinated by the public authorities with the participation of civil society actors
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline public perception surveys to be commissioned by the intervention
Additional Information:
This indicator aims to capture the degree of involvement of civil society actors in SALW control actions. Data disaggregated by type of actions and civil society actors per geographic location. Indicator taken from the IcSP Manual 2016, type of intervention 2.2. Capacity building of institutions in charge of arms control, Sector 2: Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW)
|
|
Number of civil society organization (CSO) representatives trained by the EU-funded intervention who increased their knowledge of climate change/forced displacement/ mitigating conflict risks/youth and gender inclusion/ conflict and other early warning systems (disaggregated by sex, population group, disability status) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Database of training participants, pre- and post-training tests
Additional Information:
Human rights, gender and conflict sensitivity dimensions should be included in training and capacity building. If monitoring capacity is limited or the context is fragile, this indicator could be simplified to monitor only the number of persons trained (without referring to an increase in knowledge and/or skills). However, in order to ensure the quality of training and the achievement of the desired result, it is recommended to assess the knowledge of participants before and after the intervention whenever possible. Indicator taken from the IcSP Manual 2016, type of intervention 8.3 Capacity development of stakeholders in conflict prevention, mitigation and resolution, Sector 8: Security sector reforms |
|
Number of civil society actors trained by the EU-funded intervention who increased their knowledge and/or skills in Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), disaggregated by sex, age, disability status and ethnicity
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
If monitoring capacity is limited or the context is fragile, this indicator could be simplified to monitor only the number of persons trained (without referring to an increase in knowledge and/or skills). However, in order to ensure the quality of training and the achievement of the desired result, it is recommended to assess the knowledge of participants before and after the intervention whenever possible.Â
|
|
Number of people trained by the EU-funded intervention who increased their knowledge of and/or skills in using Climate Smart techniques/technologies, disaggregated by sex, age and ethnicity
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline expert studies/mappings conducted by the EU-funded interventionÂ
Additional Information:
Climate-smart innovative options are techniques/technologies aiming at reducing the impact of human activities on climate change, such as energy saving, water saving processes and equipment. This indicator measures to what extent beneficiaries have acquired knowledge related to these techniques/technologies.
If monitoring capacity is limited or the context is fragile, this indicator could be simplified to monitor only the number of persons trained (without referring to an increase in knowledge and/or skills). However, in order to ensure the quality of training and the achievement of the desired result, it is recommended to assess the knowledge of participants before and after the intervention whenever possible.Â
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)
|
|
Number of people with increased environmental awareness thanks to support from the EU-funded intervention, disaggregated by sex, age and ethnicity
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline public perception surveys to be commissioned by the interventionÂ
Additional Information:
This indicator measures to what extent the target population has been informed about environmental issues.
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)
|
|
Number of people benefitting from the clearance, removal and destruction of stockpile of mines, unexploded ordnances (UXOs) and explosive remnants of war (ERW) with support from the EU-funded intervention, disaggregated by sex and age (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
|
|
Number of national and local Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) strategies developed with support of the EU-funded intervention (relevant for SDG 1.5.3, SDG 13.1.3)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
National reports; human rights institutions reports; Peacebuilding NGO reports; reports on gender equality; project monitoring reports when projects support inclusion of women in peacebuilding processes
Additional Information:
Data from this indicator is relevant for SDG Indicators No.1.5.3 ("Number of countries that adopt and implement national disaster risk reduction strategies in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030") and No.13.1.3 ("Proportion of local governments that adopt and implement local disaster risk reduction strategies in line with national disaster risk reduction strategies").
Indicator Definition: National DRR strategies in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030: national  disaster  risk  reduction  strategies  and  plans,  across  different  timescales  with  targets, indicators  and  time  frames,  aimed  at  preventing the  creation  of  risk,  the  reduction  of  existing  risk and the strengthening of economic, social, heal the and environmental resilience (Sendai Framework, para  27(b)). In  the  Sendai  Framework,  link  with  DRR  and  climate  change  adaptation  is  strongly advocated.
Note: the DRR strategies need to be based on risk information and assessments.
See the https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information.
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)
|
|
Number of districts/regions that developed a contingency plan and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) plan with support from the EU-funded intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
National reports; human rights institutions reports; Peacebuilding NGO reports; reports on gender equality; project monitoring reports when projects support inclusion of women in peacebuilding processes
Additional Information:
A contingency plan is the synthesis of the discussion, analysis and decisions made during the planning process. It is also a means of communicating these ideas to people who may  not have been involved in the planning process. The goals of a contingency plan are to establish a communication system, create recovery/response thresholds, and define the roles and responsibilities of key staff. A DRR plan is a management tool to help make decision on the appropriate mix of risk reduction options. This indicator measures the number of districts/regions having contingency plan and DRR plan.
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)
|
Result | Indicator(s) |
Output: Strengthened capacity of civil society to promote and advocate for socio-economic, cultural, civil, and political rights, including provision of key services, particularly in countries at high risk of conflict, in a crisis or post-disaster mode, and/or... |
GERF 2.14/ EURF 2.15 (GAP III) Number of people who have benefited from institution or workplace based VET/skills development interventions supported by the EU: (a) all VET/skills development, (b) only VET/skills development for digitalisation (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Public sector reports - National statistical report
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems - Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
Possible match with EU RF 2.15 See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Forced Displacement" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators) |
Number of beneficiaries who obtained civil registration documents with support from the EU-funded intervention, disaggregated by sex, age and type of document
(Numeric)
Data Source:
National reports; human rights institutions reports; Peacebuilding NGO reports; reports on gender equality; project monitoring reports when projects support inclusion of women in peacebuilding processes
Additional Information:
ID documents can include registration of displacement, birth certificate, identity card - please specify in the indicator which type of document when you are interested in.
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Forced Displacement" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
|
Number of service providers trained by the EU-funded intervention with increased knowledge and/or skills in responding to the specific needs and vulnerabilities of displaced persons, disaggregated by sex, location and service sector
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments commission by the EU-funded interventionÂ
Additional Information:
Please specify the training topics and target participants in the local context. If monitoring capacity is limited or the context is fragile, this indicator could be simplified to monitor only the number of persons trained (without referring to an increase in knowledge and/or skills). However, in order to ensure the quality of training and the achievement of the desired result, it is recommended to assess the knowledge of participants before and after the intervention whenever possible.Â
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Forced Displacement" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
|
Number of persons participating in local projects aiming to combat discrimination against displaced persons with support from the EU-funded intervention, disaggregated by sex, displacement status, ethnicity
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
This can include conference participants, participants who joined a community activity supported by the Action, etc.
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Forced Displacement" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
|
Number of civil society projects promoting social cohesion and conflict prevention between host/resident communities and displaced persons/returnees with EU support (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Progress reports for the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
Please specify in the indicator whether the EU funded intervention will target host or resident communities - and displaced persons or returnees (or a mix of these groups). See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Forced Displacement" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators) |
Result | Indicator(s) |
Result: Strengthened human and institutional capacities to provide more equitable, inclusive, accountable and sustainable services (health, justice, education, sanitation, social protection, transport, urban planning, land and ... |
Number of persons with access to health/sanitation/justice/education/social protection/transport services provided with support of EU-funded intervention, disaggregated by sex, age, ethnicity, type of service received, location - urban/peri-urban/rural
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments to be commissioned by the EU-funded interventionÂ
Additional Information:
Please adapt the indicator by specifying the service provided thanks to EU support based on the local context.
|
Number of persons trained by the EU-funded intervention who have increased skills and/or knowledge in improving access to [health, justice, education, sanitation, social protection, transport, urban planning, land and natural resources management, energy provision, water services], disaggregated by sex, age, type of organisation/institution
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys to be commissioned by the EU-funded interventionÂ
Additional Information:
The topic of the training and type of beneficiary (government, civil society, private sector) should be specified. If monitoring capacity is limited or the context is fragile, this indicator could be simplified to monitor only the number of persons trained (without referring to an increase in knowledge and/or skills). However, in order to ensure the quality of training and the achievement of the desired result, it is recommended to assess the knowledge of participants before and after the intervention whenever possible.Â
|
|
Number of people with access to business incubator services (e.g. entrepreneurial mentoring, advisory services and technical assistance for diversified businesses) developed/strengthened by the EU-funded intervention, disaggregated by sex, age and location - urban/peri-urban/rural
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys to be commissioned by the EU-funded interventionÂ
Additional Information:
Please specify the target beneficiaries and type of business incubator services in the indicator if possible.
|
|
Number of persons trained by the EU-funded intervention who increased their knowledge of public institutions (national and local legislatures, public service, and judiciary) compared to national distributions), disaggregated by sex, age
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EU conflict EWS iterations, monitoring and follow-up (EU Headquarters and EU Delegations)
Additional Information:
If monitoring capacity is limited or the context is fragile, this indicator could be simplified to monitor only the number of persons trained (without referring to an increase in knowledge and/or skills). However, in order to ensure the quality of training and the achievement of the desired result, it is recommended to assess the knowledge of participants before and after the intervention whenever possible.Â
|
|
Number of people reached through CSO awareness raising campaigns informing the public on their rights to access different services, disaggregated by sex, age, ethnicity
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EU actors including EU delegations (Progress reports, ROM reports, Mid-term reviews, EARM reports, country and thematic evaluations, etc.)
Additional Information:
|
Result | Indicator(s) |
Result: Improved opportunities and capacities for political participation of all layers of the population, including greater spaces for democratic dialogue and civil society, with a focus on peaceful and inclusive reconciliation, and women and ... |
Number of people active in CSO dialogue and reconciliation activities supported by the EU-funded intervention, disaggregated by sex and age
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EU actors including EU delegations (Progress reports, ROM reports, Mid-term reviews, EARM reports, country and thematic evaluations, etc.)
Additional Information:
Inspired by indicator from the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP), intervention type 9.3. Dialogue and reconciliation initiatives.
|
Number of media publications on fundamental rights specifically directed at women and underrepresented groups (youth, ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, etc.) published with support from the EU-funded intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EU actors including EU delegations (Progress reports, ROM reports, Mid-term reviews, EARM reports, country and thematic evaluations, etc.)
Additional Information:
This indicator contributes to measuring the level of awareness of media of the rights of underrepresented groups and their willingness to promote public debate on the rights of these groups by publishing information on their situation.
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Democracy" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
|
Number of people from underrepresented groups who organize/take part in parliamentary and political party activities with support from the EU-funded intervention, disaggregated by sex, disability status
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EU actors including EU delegations (Progress reports, ROM reports, Mid-term reviews, EARM reports, country and thematic evaluations, etc.)
Additional Information:
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Democracy" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
|
Number of meetings between MPs/political parties with CSOs and women’s/underrepresented groups’ organisations (youth, people with disabilities, minorities) organised with support from the EU-funded intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EU actors including EU delegations (Progress reports, ROM reports, Mid-term reviews, EARM reports, country and thematic evaluations, etc.)
Additional Information:
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Democracy" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
|
Number of election candidates with disabilities or from minority communities with increased knowledge and/or skills in parliamentary and political party action, disaggregated by sex, disability status
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EU actors including EU delegations and international actors reports
Additional Information:
If monitoring capacity is limited or the context is fragile, this indicator could be simplified to monitor only the number of persons trained (without referring to an increase in knowledge and/or skills). However, in order to ensure the quality of training and the achievement of the desired result, it is recommended to assess the knowledge of participants before and after the intervention whenever possible. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Democracy" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
|
Number of individual or group consultations between citizens and party representatives facilitated by the EU-funded intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
External assessment report
Additional Information:
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Democracy" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators). Consider relevant disaggregation for data on individuals (sex, age, ethnicity, etc.)
|
|
Number of draft legislation resulting from consultations with citizens organized with support from the EU-funded intervention, presented by the party
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
Could be matched to the EFSD results framework indicator on "number of units served among relevant target group". See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Business Environment Reform" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators).
|
|
Number of Framework Partnership Agreements (FPAs) and platforms providing inputs to the High Level Political Forum with support from the EU-funded intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
The EU reinforces its partnerships with CSO networks, including foundations, through Framework Partnership Agreements (FPAs). This indicator measures the extent to which FPA partners contribute inputs to the High Level Political Forum, before and after the support of the EU-funded intervention.
|
|
Number and type of civil society actors participating in local processes (e.g. peace structures, planning, development projects, management of natural resources) affecting their daily lives thanks to support from the EU-funded intervention, disaggregated by sex, region, ethnicity, age and social group
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
Peacebuilding and Statebuilding Indicator No.1.4 (iii) (www.pbsbdialogue.org / www.newdeal4peace.org): 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.
|
|
Number of women's organisations participating in decision-making regarding local governance, development and peacebuilding thanks to support of EU-funded intervention (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Database of beneficiaries
Additional Information:
|
|
Number of peace process mediators trained by the EU-funded intervention who increased their knowledge of international standards in conflict resolution (disaggregated by sex)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
If monitoring capacity is limited or the context is fragile, this indicator could be simplified to monitor only the number of persons trained (without referring to an increase in knowledge and/or skills). However, in order to ensure the quality of training and the achievement of the desired result, it is recommended to assess the knowledge of participants before and after the intervention whenever possible.Â
|
|
Number of persons involved in local reconciliation initiatives, confidence-building initiatives, or formal peace processes (e.g. local peace committees, public debates, forums, cross-community activities and others) thanks to support of the EU-funded intervention, disaggregated by sex and ethnicity
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline legal assessments to be commissioned by the Action
Additional Information:
This can include conference participants, participants who joined a community activity supported by the Action, etc.
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Forced Displacement" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
Result | Indicator(s) |
Output: Strengthened capacities of civil society and government authorities to contribute effectively to human rights protection, justice sector reforms in line with international best standards, transitional justice mechanisms and security sector reform |
Number of judges/courts protected from threats, harassment, assault, assassination or intimidation with support from the EU-funded intervention, disaggregated by sex and ethnicity
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
This indicator is appropriate at output level if the intervention provides security staff, scanners, fences, etc.
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Justice Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
Number of prosecutors’ offices equipped by the EU-funded intervention to record testimonies, store and maintain evidence, and keep track of pending cases and hearing dates
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of training participants, pre- and post-training tests
Additional Information:
Please specify types of material sources that can be provided by the intervention.
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Justice Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
|
Number of judiciary staff (prosecutors, judges, court clerks), prison officers, law enforcement officers and other legal officials trained by the EU-funded intervention in the penal system and civil justice who demonstrate increased knowledge in the relevant areas, disaggregated by sex and role
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
Please specify the training topics and target participants in the local context. If the EU-funded intervention does not have a high M&E budget, you can use a simpler version of this indicator “Number of judiciary staff (prosecutors, judges, court clerks), prison officers, law enforcement officers and other legal officials trained by the project in the penal system and civil justice†(without going into the level of their knowledge before and after the training).
You may also decide to use the more advanced version of this indicator - requiring the implementing partner to show whether the beneficiaries increased their knowledge). In this case, please specify that the implementing partner should develop pre- and post-training tests to be administered to all training beneficiaries, with results to be reported on in each Progress Report. The design of pre- and post-training tests needs to be a separate activity once the training curriculum is approved.
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Justice Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
|
GERF 2.30/ EURF 2.26 Number of victims of human rights violations directly benefiting from assistance funded by the EU (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Database of beneficiaries
Additional Information:
This indicator aims to assess the capacity of victims’ organisations to advocate for public and official recognition of victim’s rights and their collaboration with transitional justice mechanisms (e.g. special tribunals, truth commissions) leading to an increasing number of victims receiving compensation. The programming and implementation of the EU-funded intervention's actions need to be culturally gender and conflict-sensitive and ensure a rights-based approach. Indicator taken from 2016 IcSP Manual, Sector 11 Transitional Justice. |
|
Number of trained Security Sector Reform (SSR) stakeholders implementing conflict prevention and peacebuilding actions with support of the EU-funded intervention (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Progress reports for the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
|
Result | Indicator(s) |
Output: Enhanced support measures for inclusive peacebuilding, through support to peace processes, implementation of peace agreements and recovery plans, effective Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration (DDR) ... |
Number of learners with increased knowledge and/or skills in promoting sustainable development (e.g. education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development) thanks to support of the EU-funded intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Global SDG Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/.  • Data providers: Ministries with responsibilities related to water supply and sanitation, agriculture, water resources development and management, and environment;
• Data compilers: WHO, with support from OECD and UNEP
(http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/glaas/en/)
Additional Information:
If monitoring capacity is limited or the context is fragile, this indicator could be simplified to monitor only the number of persons trained (without referring to an increase in knowledge and/or skills). However, in order to ensure the quality of training and the achievement of the desired result, it is recommended to assess the knowledge of participants before and after the intervention whenever possible.Â
Please identify in the indicator who the target group is and what is the specific area of sustainable development that will be promoted. Indicator inspired by SDG Indicator No.4.7.1: "Extent to which (i) global citizenship education and (ii) education for sustainable development, including gender equality and human rights, are mainstreamed at all levels in: (a) national education policies; (b) curricula; (c) teacher education; and (d) student assessment". See the https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information.
|
Number of ex-combatants benefitting from psycho-social support thanks to support from the EU-funded intervention, disaggregated by sex and age
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline CSO mapping to be commissioned by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
Please specify the type of support to be provided in the local context (it could be also other things, not only psycho-social support). See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Security Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
|
Number of ex-combatants with improved skills thanks to VET provided by the EU-funded intervention, disaggregated by sex and age
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline CSO mapping to be commissioned by the EU-funded interventionÂ
Additional Information:
Please specify the type of support to be provided in the local context (it could be also other things, not only VET). See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Security Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
|
Number of police officers trained by the EU-funded intervention who increased their knowledge of DDR challenges and the available support services, disaggregated by sex
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of participants
Additional Information:
If monitoring capacity is limited or the context is fragile, this indicator could be simplified to monitor only the number of persons trained (without referring to an increase in knowledge and/or skills). However, in order to ensure the quality of training and the achievement of the desired result, it is recommended to assess the knowledge of participants before and after the intervention whenever possible. See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Security Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators).
|
|
Number of government policies developed or revised with civil society organisation participation through EU support - in the field of Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
If only one strategy is foreseen, please change the formulation of the indicator to "Status of". See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Security Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators) |
|
Number of persons reached by public awareness campaigns on the importance of DDR and promoting the re-integration of ex-combatants (or related topics) implemented with support from the EU-funded intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments to be commissioned by the EU-funded interventionÂ
Additional Information:
This number can be obtained either by collecting information about people who participate in events organised by the EU-funded intervention, or based on the data from the listenership surveys (if the intervention supports the development of a radio/TV programme, for example).
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Security Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
|
Number of prisoners/detainees with access to vocational education and training / medical care thanks to support from the EU-funded intervention, disaggregated by sex
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Justice Sector Reform" (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators).
|
|
Number of child soldiers demobilised or children prevented from being mobilised with support of the EU-funded intervention, disaggregated by sex, age and type of demobilisation
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys of CSO representatives to be commissioned by the EU-funded interventionÂ
Additional Information:
Based on DAC Code 15261 child soldiers/ prevention and demobilisation.
|
Result | Indicator(s) |
Result: Strengthened government’s capacity for effective public finance management, including transparent and competitive public procurement, effective fight against corruption and, improved accountability at different institutional and societal levels |
Number of parliamentary/committee members and support staff trained by the EU-funded intervention who increased their knowledge and/or skills for monitoring, reporting and enforcement of budgetary rules (disaggregated by sex) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Database of beneficiaries/participants Pre- and post-intervention test reports
Additional Information:
If monitoring capacity is limited or the context is fragile, this indicator could be simplified to monitor only the number of persons trained (without referring to an increase in knowledge and/or skills). However, in order to ensure the quality of training and the achievement of the desired result, it is recommended to assess the knowledge of participants before and after the intervention whenever possible. |
Number of financial systems/regulations [developed/ improved/ implemented*] with support of the EU-funded intervention, disaggregated by domain of reform and beneficiary
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
Reforms can occur at local/micro, subnational, national or regional levels.
Please qualify what the system should be like for the target.
*adapt/delete as appropriate
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Digitalisation" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
|
Status of a National Integrity System assessment
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
 Global SDG Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/.  Data providers: National statistical organisations. Data compilers: UN-Habitat. Primary data on results achieved thanks to EU funding to be provided in progress reports
Additional Information:
This indicator is appropriate at output level if the EU-funded intervention will support the implementation of a National Integrity System assessment
|
|
Number of Civil Society Organisation (CSO) members trained by the EU-funded intervention who increased their knowledge of internal governance standards, transparency and accountability towards intended beneficiaries, constituencies, and social bases (disaggregated by sex) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Database of training participants, pre- and post-training tests
Additional Information:
If monitoring capacity is limited or the context is fragile, this indicator could be simplified to monitor only the number of persons trained (without referring to an increase in knowledge and/or skills). However, in order to ensure the quality of training and the achievement of the desired result, it is recommended to assess the knowledge of participants before and after the intervention whenever possible. |
|
Number of parliamentary/committee members and support staff trained by the EU-funded intervention who increased their knowledge and/or skills for monitoring, reporting and enforcement of budgetary rules (disaggregated by sex)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
If monitoring capacity is limited or the context is fragile, this indicator could be simplified to monitor only the number of persons trained (without referring to an increase in knowledge and/or skills). However, in order to ensure the quality of training and the achievement of the desired result, it is recommended to assess the knowledge of participants before and after the intervention whenever possible.Â
|
|
Number of people trained by the EU-funded intervention who increased their knowledge and/or skills for combatting money laundering, disaggregated by sex
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of training participants, pre- and post-training tests
Additional Information:
If monitoring capacity is limited or the context is fragile, this indicator could be simplified to monitor only the number of persons trained (without referring to an increase in knowledge and/or skills). However, in order to ensure the quality of training and the achievement of the desired result, it is recommended to assess the knowledge of participants before and after the intervention whenever possible.Â
|
Result | Indicator(s) |
Output: Strengthened institutional capacities at central and local level to respond to economic shocks linked to natural disasters, conflicts and other crises, and to promote inclusive and accountable recovery and reconstruction |
Number of central and local institution representatives trained by the EU-funded intervention who increased their knowledge and/or skills in [specify topic] (i.e. risk disaster planning), disaggregated by sex, role, type of institution
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of beneficiaries
Additional Information:
Please specify the training topics and target participants in the local context. If monitoring capacity is limited or the context is fragile, this indicator could be simplified to monitor only the number of persons trained (without referring to an increase in knowledge and/or skills). However, in order to ensure the quality of training and the achievement of the desired result, it is recommended to assess the knowledge of participants before and after the intervention whenever possible.Â
|
Number of plans/strategies on recovery and reconstruction/anticipatory recovery planning measures/recovery frameworks/disaster preparedness plans/contingency plans developed with support from the EU-funded intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessment of SALW control actions to be conducted by the EU intervention
Additional Information:
The indicator measures progress in integrating disaster risk reduction measures into post-disaster recovery and reconstruction planning processes. The indicator could also be expressed as "status of…" if only one document is planned. Also, if the EU-funded intervention supported the implementation of the plan/strategy (instead of its development), please adapt the indicator accordingly.Â
|
|
Number of post-disaster needs assessments conducted with support of the EU-funded intervention, disaggregated by administrative sub-region, location - urban/peri-urban/rural and level of government
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of training participants, pre- and post-training tests
Additional Information:
|
|
Status of coordination mechanisms between governments, civil society, the private sector, international agencies and reconstruction actors supported by the EU-funded intervention
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Database of training participants, pre- and post-training tests
Additional Information:
The EU-funded intervention will directly support the creation of opportunities for all the main actors to standardise approaches to post-disaster assessments and recovery planning and to be inclusive in their approaches (i.e. to ensure participation of civil society, women, minorities, people with disabilities, etc.)Â
|
|
Number of stakeholders participating in coordination mechanisms supported by the EU-funded intervention for post-disaster assessment and recovery planning (disaggregated by sector)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys of target group to be commissioned by the EU-funded interventionÂ
Additional Information:
|
Result | Indicator(s) |
Output: Strengthened government capacity to design, implement and sustain nationally-owned and -led shock-resistant social protection systems with particular attention to children, women and those living in marginalised/vulnerable situations |
Number of government representatives trained by the EU-funded intervention who increased their knowledge of good practices for ensuring that social protection systems are shock resistant (disaggregated by sex) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Database of training participants, pre- and post-training tests
Additional Information:
Please specify as much as possible about the training topics and target participants in the local context. If monitoring capacity is limited or the context is fragile, this indicator could be simplified to monitor only the number of persons trained (without referring to an increase in knowledge and/or skills). However, in order to ensure the quality of training and the achievement of the desired result, it is recommended to assess the knowledge of participants before and after the intervention whenever possible. |
Number of social protection actions implemented by targeted Government institutions with support of the EU-funded intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
The actions and projects implemented by the government should aim to provide social protection systems particularly to children, women and marginalised groups.
|
Result | Indicator(s) |
Result: Strengthened government and private sector capacity to ensure access to financing, to diversify markets and to meet trade standards (including social and environmental aspects, as well as labour rights and human rights) |
Number of new loans provided to [*individuals/firms] with support from the EU-funded intervention, disaggregated by age and sex of individual/firm owner, administrative sub-region, location - rural/peri-urban/rural
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
Could be matched to the EFSD results framework indicator on "number of units served among relevant target group".
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Business Environment Reform" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
Extent to which the EU-funded intervention supported the application of ILO labour standards at national level
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Database of beneficiaries
Additional Information:
|
|
Extent to which the EU-funded intervention supported the implementation of standards related to the sustainable development chapter of trade agreements (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Progress reports from the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
|
|
Extent to which the EU-funded intervention supported the implementation of human rights standards related to EU trade preferences (EBA, GSP and GSP+, etc.)
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Database of training participants, pre- and post-training tests
Additional Information:
|
|
Number of (additional) financial services delivered to individuals and enterprises with support from the EU-funded intervention, disaggregated by type and sector
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of participants
Additional Information:
Additional services are those that are not currently available in the local market. They do not necessarily have to be new products, just new to the current market
Please also consider the sustainability of  the financial institution's ability to provide these services after the project ends 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)
|
|
Number of (additional) financial instruments used by the financial institutions with support from the EU-funded intervention, disaggregated by type
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of beneficiaries
Additional Information:
Additional instruments are those that are additional to the institutions, not necessarily completely new innovative instruments that do not exist elsewhere. Please also consider the sustainability of the usage after the project ends 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)
|
|
Number of farmers/agro-producers with access to credit thanks to support of the EU-funded intervention, disaggregated by sex
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
Please define what exactly "access to credit" means (i.e. support for application or credit being awarded by the financial institution).
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Nutrition" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
|
Number of MSMEs, including farmers, receiving agriculture-related credit with support of the EU-funded intervention, disaggregated by sex of MSME owner
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
Please define what exactly "agriculture-related credit" means. Please define what exactly "access to credit" means (i.e. support for application or credit being awarded by the financial institution).
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Nutrition" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
|
Number of firms supported by the EU-funded intervention to comply with labour laws and regulations, disaggregated by sex of firm owner/head if relevant
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of training participants, pre- and post-training tests
Additional Information:
Please adapt to the context of the intervention, e.g. to specific/named regulations/laws where appropriate.Â
|
|
Status of legislation/ policy/ reforms on workers’ right on [X] designed with support of the EU-funded intervention
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
[X] – fill in as appropriate. Examples include minimal wage, protection from harassment (including sexual harassment), maternity/ parental/ other leave protection, etc.
|
Result | Indicator(s) |
Output: Strengthened capacities and support for sustainable livelihoods in rural and urban areas, including by skills development and job creation initiatives, with a specific attention to economic empowerment and inclusion ... |
Number of households (HHs) reporting new income sources thanks to support of the EU-funded intervention (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys of target households conducted by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
|
Number of people trained by the EU-funded intervention who increased their knowledge and/or skills for engaging in Income Generating Activities (IGA), disaggregated by sex, age and ethnicity
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of participants
Additional Information:
Income Generating Activities (IGAs) consist of small businesses managed by a group of people to increase their household income through livelihood diversification. This indicator measures the total number of men and women supported/ trained to engage in IGAs.
If monitoring capacity is limited or the context is fragile, this indicator could be simplified to monitor only the number of persons trained (without referring to an increase in knowledge and/or skills). However, in order to ensure the quality of training and the achievement of the desired result, it is recommended to assess the knowledge of participants before and after the intervention whenever possible. 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)
|
|
Number of people with improved skills, including technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship, developed thanks to support of the EU-funded intervention, disaggregated by age-group, sex, administrative sub-region, location - urban/peri-urban/rural, and socio-economic status (inspired by SDG indicator 4.4.1)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
• Progress reports
• Media reports (print, radio, television, internet)
Additional Information:
Indicator inspired by the SDG Indicator No.4.4.1 ("Proportion of youth and adults with information and communications technology (ICT) skills, by type of skill"). If monitoring capacity is limited or the context is fragile, this indicator could be simplified to monitor only the number of persons trained (without referring to an increase in knowledge and/or skills). However, in order to ensure the quality of training and the achievement of the desired result, it is recommended to assess the knowledge of participants before and after the intervention whenever possible.Â
See the https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information.
|
|
Number of youth and adults with information and communications technology (ICT) skills thanks to support of the EU-funded intervention, disaggregated by sex, age-group, type of skill, administrative sub-region, location - urban/peri-urban/rural and socio-economic status (inspired by SDG indicator 4.4.1)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of participants
Additional Information:
Inspired by SDG Indicator No. 4.4.1. ("Proportion of youth and adults with information and communications technology (ICT) skills, by type of skill"). If monitoring capacity is limited or the context is fragile, this indicator could be simplified to monitor only the number of persons trained (without referring to an increase in knowledge and/or skills). However, in order to ensure the quality of training and the achievement of the desired result, it is recommended to assess the knowledge of participants before and after the intervention whenever possible.Â
See the https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ for more detailed information.
|
Result | Indicator(s) |
Output: Increased access to food and capacities for diversified food production, climate sensitive and inclusive agriculture, based on secure land tenure |
Number of cooperatives/farmers’ groups strengthened with support from the EU-funded intervention (e.g. for collective purchase of inputs and/or marketing, etc.)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports, including meeting reports and lists of participants
Additional Information:
In business, inputs are resources needed for processes involved with production, such as raw materials, equipment, personnel, facilities, and energy. Inputs include any and all factors required for production, and are generally recorded as costs on company balance sheets. Whereas marketing  are activities of an entity  associated with buying and selling a product or service. It includes advertising, selling and delivering products to people.
This indicator measures the number  of cooperatives/groups strengthened for collective purchase of inputs and marketing (e.g. Number of Livestock Marketing Cooperatives).
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)
|
Number of district officials/farmers trained by the EU-funded intervention who increased their knowledge and/or skills for integrated crop management, crop rotation systems and practices, organic farming, integrated agriculture systems and agro-forestry, by sex
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of training participants, pre- and post-training tests
Additional Information:
Please select the relevant topics for the local context. 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. Â If monitoring capacity is limited or the context is fragile, this indicator could be simplified to monitor only the number of persons trained (without referring to an increase in knowledge and/or skills). However, in order to ensure the quality of training and the achievement of the desired result, it is recommended to assess the knowledge of participants before and after the intervention whenever possible.Â
|
|
Number of people who are members of cooperatives/farmers’ groups, etc. established/reinforced by the EU-funded intervention, disaggregated by sex, age and ethnicity
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
This indicator measures the number of people participating in cooperatives/groups established/strengthened.
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)
|
|
Status of the food stock management system (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
This indicator measures whether an emergency food stock management system has been established and working. It is appropriate at output level if the EU-funded intervention directly supports the design of such a system. 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) |
|
GERF 2.14/ EURF 2.15 Number of people who have benefited from institution or workplace based VET/skills development interventions supported by the EU: (OPSYS core indicator)
(a) all VET/skills development,
(b) only VET/skills development for digitalisation
Data Source:
Public sector reports - National statistical report EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems - Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
Vocational Education and Training (VET) refers to ‘learning pathways which aim to equip people with knowledge, know-how, skills and/or competences required in particular occupations or more broadly in the labour market’. For more information about the EU RF methodological notes please see https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/eu-rfi |
|
Number of people trained by the EU-funded intervention who increased their knowledge of and/or skills in using new agricultural practices/technologies (e.g. dryland farming initiatives, seed multiplication), disaggregated by sex, age and ethnicity
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
New Agricultural practices include but not limited to the following, Conservation agriculture, Dry land farming initiatives, Practices such as seed multiplication, Applying integrated pest management (IPM), Eliminating or reducing tillage. This indicator measures the number of households trained on new agricultural practices.
If monitoring capacity is limited or the context is fragile, this indicator could be simplified to monitor only the number of persons trained (without referring to an increase in knowledge and/or skills). However, in order to ensure the quality of training and the achievement of the desired result, it is recommended to assess the knowledge of participants before and after the intervention whenever possible. 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)
|
|
Number of people trained by the EU-funded intervention who increased their knowledge and/or skills in food conservation and preservation, disaggregated by sex, age and ethnicity
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Reports from the High Level Political Forum
Additional Information:
Food processing and preparation activities cover three main fields: (1) the preservation of foods by (a) modern methods such as refrigeration, canning and irradiation, and (b) traditional methods such as drying, salting, smoking and fermentation; (2) the development of protein - rich foods; (3) food additives.  Crop processing is a crucial step in converting raw harvested agricultural products into valuable marketable products. This indicator measures to what extent beneficiaries have acquired knowledge related to any of these methods.
If monitoring capacity is limited or the context is fragile, this indicator could be simplified to monitor only the number of persons trained (without referring to an increase in knowledge and/or skills). However, in order to ensure the quality of training and the achievement of the desired result, it is recommended to assess the knowledge of participants before and after the intervention whenever possible. 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)
|
Result | Indicator(s) |
Result: Social, environmental, climate and disaster risk assessments promoted in the public and private sector, as well as risk reduction and management strategies, including the integration of key information into early ... |
Number of policies/laws on preservation and enhancement of natural resources for agriculture development drafted/implemented* with support of the EU-funded intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
*please delete as appropriate according to the local context.
See also the Guidance on Results and Indicators for the "Nutrition" sector (https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators)
|
Number of districts supported by the EU-funded intervention providing regular (12 months / year) Early Warning monitoring data to the regions
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of training participants, pre- and post-training tests
Additional Information:
UNISDR defines "Early warning" as an integrated system of hazard monitoring, forecasting and prediction, disaster risk assessment, communication and preparedness activities systems and processes that enables individuals, communities, governments, businesses and others to take timely action to reduce disaster risks in advance of hazardous events. This indicator measure the percentage of districts proving 12 months per year,  Early Warning monitoring data to the regions.
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)
|
|
Status of Information systems for nutrition (e.g. National Information Platforms of Nutrition, NIPN) supported by the EU-funded intervention
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
The nutrition information system is a system for continuous collection, analysis and interpretation of data about nutrition. It can be used to detect malnutrition epidemics, identify trends, make decisions about interventions and monitor programmes. This indicator measures whether the nutrition information system has been established.
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)
|
|
Status of food security early warning systems supported by the EU-funded intervention (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
EWS assessments conducted by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
The Food Security Early Warning System is a multitier system that fuses satellite climate data (rainfall anomaly, and vegetation health index), crowdsourced food price data and household survey data to provide integrated visualisations of the extent of drought affected areas, impacts on market structure and pricing, and coping strategies and resilience of affected populations. This indicator measures whether food security early warning systems has been established. 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) |
|
Number of vulnerability, environmental, climate and disaster risk assessments conducted with support of the EU-funded intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EU-funded intervention M&E system  – list of resources provided by the project, disaggregated by type of resource, beneficiary institution, location and date
Additional Information:
|
|
Percentage of Early Warning Systems based on information deriving from vulnerability & risk assessments
(Percentage)
Data Source:
List of resources provided by the intervention, disaggregated by type of resource, beneficiary institution, location and date
Additional Information:
Early Warning Systems can be of different kinds for different purposes: they can be related to natural and man-made disasters, including climate change and war/ conflicts; they can be in relation to food security, etc.
|
|
Number of community-managed Drought Response and Resilience (DRR) committees established with support from the EU-funded intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
DRR committees are group of people whose aims are to reduce the damage caused by natural hazards like earthquakes, floods, droughts and cyclones, through an ethic of prevention. This indicator measures the number of community managed Drought Response and Resilience committees that are developed and working.
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)
|
|
Status of the mapping of local stakeholders and value-added’ for risk mitigation and contingency planning (beneficiaries, local institutions and private sector)
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
 Assessment of existing capacities and needs of local stakeholders to participate in all relevant stages of risk mitigation and contingency planning systems. Indicator from IcSP Manual Sector 15 Natural disaster preparedness and response 15.2 Disaster risk mitigation and early warning mechanisms
|
Result | Indicator(s) |
Output: Strengthened capacities of government authorities and communities for inclusive, transparent and sustainable management of natural resources (including conflict sensitive and rights based land management and use) |
Number of government officials/community representatives trained by the EU-funded intervention who have increased skills and/or knowledge in the sustainable management of natural resources, disaggregated by sex and ethnicity
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of beneficiaries
Additional Information:
Please specify the training topics and target participants in the local context. If monitoring capacity is limited or the context is fragile, this indicator could be simplified to monitor only the number of persons trained (without referring to an increase in knowledge and/or skills). However, in order to ensure the quality of training and the achievement of the desired result, it is recommended to assess the knowledge of participants before and after the intervention whenever possible.Â
|
Number of free, prior and informed consent processes carried out in the context of projects that may affect indigenous peoples’ lands, territories or resources, with the participation of indigenous peoples’ representative institution
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of beneficiaries
Additional Information:
|
|
Number of people with ownership or secure rights over land thanks to support of the EU-funded intervention, disaggregated by sex, administrative sub-regions, location - urban/peri-urban/rural, indigenous status
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of training participants, pre- and post-training tests
Additional Information:
At output level, this indicator is used for monitoring direct beneficiaries of the EU-funded intervention who received support to obtain proof of ownership or secure rights. Indicator adapted from (EU-funded) Indigenous Navigator (https://nav.indigenousnavigator.com/index.php/en/tools/indicators) to capture
relevant information related to this broad indicator, the following sub indicators are guiding the questions: Characteristics of indigenous peoples' traditional land tenure systems; Extension of indigenous peoples' traditional territories (CA); Extension of lands covered by collective title deeds or other binding agreements; Percentage of men and women with title deeds or other binding agreements in recognition of their individual rights to lands.
Â
|
|
Number of people trained by the EU-funded intervention who increased their knowledge of and/or skills in following sustainable land and water management practices (disaggregated by sex, age and population group) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Database of training participants, pre- and post-training tests
Additional Information:
The United Nations defines sustainable land management (SLM) as the use of land resources, including soils, water, animals and plants, for the production of goods to meet changing human needs, while simultaneously ensuring the long-term productive potential of these resources and the maintenance of their environmental functions. This indicator measures how many people have been trained in sustainable land and water management practices. If monitoring capacity is limited or the context is fragile, this indicator could be simplified to monitor only the number of persons trained (without referring to an increase in knowledge and/or skills). However, in order to ensure the quality of training and the achievement of the desired result, it is recommended to assess the knowledge of participants before and after the intervention whenever possible. 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) |
|
Number of people trained by the EU-funded intervention who increased their knowledge of and/or skills in using innovative agroforestry techniques, disaggregated by sex, age and ethnicity
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Intervention's database of event participants, listenership surveys of radio/TV programmes developed by the intervention
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. If monitoring capacity is limited or the context is fragile, this indicator could be simplified to monitor only the number of persons trained (without referring to an increase in knowledge and/or skills). However, in order to ensure the quality of training and the achievement of the desired result, it is recommended to assess the knowledge of participants before and after the intervention whenever possible.Â
|
|
Number of national and subnational institutions trained and equipped by the EU-funded intervention to resolve disputes over ownership, access, and use of natural resources in a non-violent manner (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Database of beneficiaries
Additional Information:
Please specify the training topics and target institutions in the local context. |
|
Number of people trained by the EU-funded intervention who increased their knowledge of and/or skills in natural resources management, disaggregated by sex
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of beneficiaries
Additional Information:
Please specify the training topic and target participants in the local context. If monitoring capacity is limited or the context is fragile, this indicator could be simplified to monitor only the number of persons trained (without referring to an increase in knowledge and/or skills). However, in order to ensure the quality of training and the achievement of the desired result, it is recommended to assess the knowledge of participants before and after the intervention whenever possible.Â
|
|
Number of women and men receiving environmental services payments for protecting watersheds or areas of high biodiversity thanks of support the EU-funded intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of beneficiaries
Additional Information:
|
|
Number of people producing bioenergy crops with support of the EU-funded intervention, disaggregated by sex
(Numeric)
Data Source:
• Official government publications
• Expert analysis of implementation
Additional Information:
|
Result | Indicator(s) |
Output: Strengthened local, national and regional authorities’ capacity to prevent and address environmental degradation, pollution and the effects of climate change (e.g. mitigation and adaptation strategies and measures, ... |
Number of representatives of local and national authorities trained by the EU-funded intervention who increased their knowledge of and/or skills in climate change planning and research (including disaster preparedness and management), disaggregated by sex
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Existing National Integrity Assessments available here https://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/nis
Â
Additional Information:
Please specify the training topic and target participants in the local context. If monitoring capacity is limited or the context is fragile, this indicator could be simplified to monitor only the number of persons trained (without referring to an increase in knowledge and/or skills). However, in order to ensure the quality of training and the achievement of the desired result, it is recommended to assess the knowledge of participants before and after the intervention whenever possible.Â
|
Number of local authorities where the EU-funded intervention supported the design and/or implementation of local disaster risk reduction strategies
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of training participants, pre- and post-training tests
Additional Information:
Indicator drawn from the Sendai Framework for DRR 2015-2030.
|
|
Number of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management plans in educational establishments designed with support of the EU-funded intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of training participants, pre- and post-training tests
Additional Information:
Indicator drawn from the Sendai Framework for DRR 2015-2030.
|
|
Number of disaster risk assessments conducted with support of the EU-funded intervention on land-use policy development and implementation
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of training participants, pre- and post-training tests
Additional Information:
Indicator drawn from the Sendai Framework for DRR 2015-2030. Assessments can cover urban planning, land degradation assessments and informal and non-permanent housing, and the use of guidelines and follow-up tools informed by anticipated demographic and environmental changes.
|
|
Number of financial institutions whose awareness/abilities to assess green projects have been raised with support from the EU-funded intervention (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Pre- and post-intervention assessment reports
Additional Information:
|
Result | Indicator(s) |
Output: Enhanced coordination of international actors for the implementation of the Integrated Approach to external conflicts and crises and the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus, including implementing partners (i.e. ... |
Number of coordination meetings between Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) missions and EUD development cooperation on Security Sector Reform interventions
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
|
Number of joint assessments of the security situation and SSR needs (for relevance of Security Sector Reform in e.g. political dialogue/peace process)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Mapping reports
Additional Information:
|
|
Number of government officials (national/local), staff from regional economic organisations, academia, civil society representations trained by the EU-funded intervention who have increased knowledge and/or skills in the use of conflict analysis and conflict sensitivity tools, disaggregated by sex and sector
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of training participants, pre- and post-training tests
Additional Information:
Please specify the training topics and target participants in the local context. If monitoring capacity is limited or the context is fragile, this indicator could be simplified to monitor only the number of persons trained (without referring to an increase in knowledge and/or skills). However, in order to ensure the quality of training and the achievement of the desired result, it is recommended to assess the knowledge of participants before and after the intervention whenever possible.Â
|
|
Number of conflict sensitive projects based on initial EU shared conflict analysis provided by the EU-funded intervention (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
|
|
Number of adjustments to existing projects based on a new conflict analysis provided by the EU-funded intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Intervention's progress reports
Additional Information:
|
|
Existence of mechanisms for conflict sensitivity monitoring in programme implementation in fragile contexts
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Database of beneficiaries
Additional Information:
This could be through systematic application of Conflict Sensitivity criteria; regular updating of conflict analysis; adjusting programmes and interventions according to mitigate conflict and violence risks and ensure do-no-harm approaches; inclusion of specific indicators on conflict sensitivity in programme log frame; training and capacity building for staff and implementing partners, etc.
|
|
Level of conflict sensitivity of the project agency and the main stakeholders of the project, disaggregated by Conflict Sensitivity criteria
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Database of training participants, pre- and post-training tests
Additional Information:
This could be through systematic application of Conflict Sensitivity criteria; regular updating of conflict analysis; adjusting programmes and interventions according to mitigate conflict and violence risks and ensure do-no-harm approaches; inclusion of specific indicators on conflict sensitivity in programme log frame; training and capacity building for staff and implementing partners, etc. Â Indicator taken from 2016 IcSP Manual Crosscutting theme 3: Mainstreaming Conflict-sensitivity CC3.1 Addressing immediate conflict risks
|
|
Extent to which coordination mechanisms between development, humanitarian and political actors (EU and MS, UN, etc.) have been established/reinforced by the EU-funded intervention in relation the coordination of humanitarian, development and peace interventions (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments conducted by the EU-funded intervention, government and civil society reports
Additional Information:
|
|
Status of early-warning mechanisms and security measures to prevent and respond to SGBV developed with support of the EU funded intervention
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Database of training participants, pre- and post-training tests
Additional Information:
Partly taken from Action 4.4. from EU Annual Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security 2019-2024, Objective 4: Prevention. This indicator can be used at output level if development of mechanisms and measures is under direct control of the EU-funded intervention.Â
|
|
Extent of systematic gender and conflict analysis application in EU-funded interventions in the field of conflict prevention and peacebuilding
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Bank records, database of the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
Adapted from Action 4.1. from EU Annual Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security 2019-2024, Objective 4: Prevention.Â
|
|
Number of survivors of conflict-related SGBV and war crimes supported to access justice (e.g. legal aid, representation, protection measures, etc.) at national/regional/international level, also through the Rome Statute and ICC.
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of beneficiaries
Additional Information:
Adapted from Action 5.5. from EU Annual Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security 2019-2024, Objective 5: Protection.Â
|
|
Number of joint resilience assessments conducted with EU funding to inform intervention development
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of training participants, pre- and post-training tests
Additional Information:
|
|
Extent to which the EU-funded intervention is contributing to the implementation of actions stemming from the EU Conflict Early Warning System assessments
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
|
|
Degree of use of conflict management mechanisms in development programmes
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
Use of conflict management mechanisms by project agency/ implementing partner and stakeholders including local CSOs. Indicator taken from 2016 IcSP Manual Crosscutting theme 3: Mainstreaming Conflict-sensitivity CC3.2 Addressing long-term conflict resolution and peacebuilding
|
|
Degree of community participation in conflict management and dialogue initiatives
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Assessments reports
Additional Information:
Participation of project agency and stakeholders including local CSOs in conflict management and dialogue initiatives. Indicator taken from 2016 IcSP Manual Crosscutting theme 3: Mainstreaming Conflict-sensitivity CC3.2 Addressing long-term conflict resolution and peacebuilding
|
|
Number of stakeholders with increased knowledge of and/or skills in applying conflict sensitivity, conflict analysis, resilience assessments and other relevant analytical tools, disaggregated by type of stakeholder, sex, age, administrative sub-region and location - urban/peri-urban/rural
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
Please identify in the indicator who the target group is and what is the specific area of sustainable development that will be promoted. Indicator inspired by SDG Indicator No.4.7.1: "Extent to which (i) global citizenship education and (ii) education for sustainable development, including gender equality and human rights, are mainstreamed at all levels in: (a) national education policies; (b) curricula; (c) teacher education; and (d) student assessment". If monitoring capacity is limited or the context is fragile, this indicator could be simplified to monitor only the number of persons trained (without referring to an increase in knowledge and/or skills). However, in order to ensure the quality of training and the achievement of the desired result, it is recommended to assess the knowledge of participants before and after the intervention whenever possible.Â
|
|
Number of (multilateral or regional) early warning mechanisms strengthened by the EU-funded intervention for the prevention of conflict and atrocities
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
|
Result | Indicator(s) |
Output: Strengthened sectoral and thematic policy dialogue on the basis of specific indicators on resilience, conflict sensitivity and peace, when applicable |
Status of EU Policy dialogue indicators and priorities relevant to resilience, conflict prevention and peacebuilding
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Progress reportsÂ
Additional Information:
This can be measured by the number policy changes and legal developments deriving from policy dialogue, relevant to resilience, conflict prevention and peacebuilding.Â
|
Extent to which policy dialogue criteria which are explicitly or implicitly linked to conflict sensitivity and resilience have been included in thematic and sectoral dialogue with the government with support of the EU-funded intervention
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments to be commissioned by the Action
Additional Information:
At output level only if with direct support of EU-funded intervention in developing these criteria.Â
|
|
Extent to which policy dialogue has mitigated potential negative impacts and promoted do no harm and resilience
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Progress reportsÂ
Additional Information:
This can be done by assessing the types and quality of policy changes and legal developments deriving from policy dialogue, and/or their immediate impact on ongoing interventions relevant to resilience, conflict prevention and peacebuilding. This qualitative assessment can be aided by conflict analyses, resilience assessments, conflict sensitivity assessments.Â
|
|
Number of participants in multi-stakeholder meetings/conferences/forums on resilience, climate and disaster risk reduction, conflict prevention, peacebuilding, disaggregated by sex and type of institution
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Legislation/policies developed/updated with support of the EU-funded intervention, progress reports
Additional Information:
|
|
Number of joint initiatives, including lessons learned exercises, with bilateral partners and international organisations, conducted with support from the EU-funded intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
|
|
Number of conflict analyses and conflict sensitivity assessments supported at HQ or EUD level to enable conflict sensitive development programming
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Legislation/policies developed/updated with support of the EU-funded interventionÂ
Additional Information:
|
Result | Indicator(s) |
Specific Objective - Outcome: 8. Enhanced ownership, gender responsiveness and inclusivity of peacebuilding and conflict prevention processes at local, national and international levels, including systematic participation of women and youth |
Number of targeted communities who feel that the EU-funded Action has reduced the risk of radicalisation of members of their community (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
|
Percentage of radicalised individuals and violent extremist offenders rehabilitated thanks to the EU-funded intervention, who reintegrated into social and family life, disaggregated by sex and age (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline public perception surveys to be conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention
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). |
|
Number of women participating as delegates to formal peace negotiations or mediation processes (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
Core indicator for the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP). |
Result | Indicator(s) |
Output: Strengthened capacity of communities and civil society, including women, youth and those living in marginalised/vulnerable situations, to participate and engage in political, social, cultural and economic development processes and in inclusive ... |
GERF 2.24/ EURF 2.28 Number of people directly benefiting from EU supported interventions that specifically aim to support civilian post-conflict peace-building and/or conflict prevention (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems - Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention, ROM reviews
International organisation data portals and reports - UNEP and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA), https://www.protectedplanet.net/en/thematic-areas/wdpa?tab=WDPA
International organisation data portals and reports - Joint Research Centre (JRC), Digital Observatory for Protected Areas, https://dopa.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en Public sector reports - National statistical report
Additional Information:
For more information about the EU RF methodological notes, please see https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/eu-rfi |
Result | Indicator(s) |
Output: Strengthened capacities of communities and civil society to prevent, mitigate and manage risks, including those related to conflicts, natural hazards, climate change, etc |
Number of journalists and editors trained by the EU-funded intervention who increased their knowledge and skills in strategic communication for challenging online and offline hate speech and violent extremist propaganda (disaggregated by sex) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Database of training participants, pre- and post-training tests
Additional Information:
Please specify the training topics and target participants in the local context. If monitoring capacity is limited or the context is fragile, this indicator could be simplified to monitor only the number of persons trained (without referring to an increase in knowledge and/or skills). However, in order to ensure the quality of training and the achievement of the desired result, it is recommended to assess the knowledge of participants before and after the intervention whenever possible. |
Number of non-state actors representatives at national and community level active in preventing and countering Violent Extremism and/or hate speech with support of the EU-funded intervention (disaggregated by sex) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Database of beneficiaries/participants
Additional Information:
This can include civil society organizations, media, religious/community leaders or other relevant actors - please specify the key actors in the local context. |
|
Number of people trained on reconciliation/ mediation/ conflict management/ conflict transformation/ stabilisation (disaggregated by sex)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
Taken from the Manual of Indicators for the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace" (IcSP) , 2018.
|
|
GERF 2.5 Number of countries and cities with climate change and/or disaster risk reduction strategies: (a) developed, (b) under implementation with EU support (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Public sector reports - National statistical report
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems - Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
For more information about the EU RF methodological notes please see https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/eu-rfi |
|
Number of national and local Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) strategies developed with support of the EU-funded intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
National DRR strategies in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030: national disaster risk reduction strategies and plans, across different timescales with targets, indicators and time frames, aimed at preventing the creation of risk, the reduction of existing risk and the strengthening of economic, social, heal the and environmental resilience (Sendai Framework, para 27(b)). In the Sendai Framework, link with DRR and climate change adaptation is strongly advocated.
Note: the DRR strategies need to be based on risk information and assessments.
Â
|
Result | Indicator(s) |
Result: Strengthened human and institutional capacities to provide more equitable, inclusive, accountable and sustainable services (health, justice, education, sanitation, social protection, transport, urban planning, land and ... |
GERF 2.35/ EURF 2.5 Number of 1-year olds fully immunised with EU support
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of training participants with certification results
Additional Information:
For more information about the EU RF methodological notes please see https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/eu-rfi
|
GERF 2.25/ EURF 2.27 Number of people directly benefiting from legal aid interventions supported by the EU (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems - Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention, ROM reviews Public sector reports - National statistical report
Additional Information:
For more information about the EU RF methodological notes please see https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/eu-rfi |
|
GERF 2.38/ EURF 2.8 (GAP III) Number of people with access to improved drinking water source and/or sanitation facility with EU support (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems - Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention, ROM reviews, EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports
International organisation data portals and reports - WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme, Global data on drinking water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), https://washdata.org/
Additional Information:
For more information about the EU RF methodological notes please see https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/eu-rfi |
|
Number of persons with access to social protection provided with support of EU-funded intervention (disaggregated by sex, age, population group, location - urban/peri-urban/rural)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of training participants, pre- and post- training test results
Additional Information:
|
Result | Indicator(s) |
Result: Improved opportunities and capacities for political participation of all layers of the population, including greater spaces for democratic dialogue and civil society, with a focus on peaceful and inclusive reconciliation, and women and ... |
GERF 2.24/ EURF 2.28 Number of people directly benefiting from EU supported interventions that specifically aim to support civilian post-conflict peace-building and/or conflict prevention (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Public sector reports - National statistical report
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems - Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
For more information about the EU RF methodological notes please see https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/eu-rfi |
Result | Indicator(s) |
Result: Strengthened government’s capacity for effective public finance management, including transparent and competitive public procurement, effective fight against corruption and, improved accountability at different institutional and societal levels |
GERF 2.19/ EURF 2.30 Number of countries supported by the EU to strengthen revenue mobilisation, public financial management and/or budget transparency
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports, minutes of meetings or other official correspondence with relevant Ministries or institutions with reference to the proposals issued
Additional Information:
For more information about the EU RF methodological notes please see https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/eu-rfi
|
Result | Indicator(s) |
Output: Strengthened institutional capacities at central and local level to respond to economic shocks linked to natural disasters, conflicts and other crises, and to promote inclusive and accountable recovery and reconstruction |
GERF 2.5 Number of countries and cities with climate change and/or disaster risk reduction strategies: (a) developed, (b) under implementation with EU support
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of training participants, pre- and post- training test results
Additional Information:
For more information about the EU RF methodological notes please see https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/eu-rfi. Special attention should be paid to plans/strategies on recovery and reconstruction/anticipatory recovery planning measures/recovery frameworks/disaster preparedness plans/contingency plans.
|
Result | Indicator(s) |
Output: Strengthened government capacity to design, implement and sustain nationally-owned and -led shock-resistant social protection systems with particular attention to children, women and those living in marginalised/vulnerable situations |
GERF 2.39 Number of people directly benefiting from EU supported interventions that aim to reduce social and economic inequality (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems - Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention, ROM reviews, EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports
Additional Information:
For more information about the EU RF methodological notes, please see https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/eu-rfi |
Result | Indicator(s) |
Result: Strengthened government and private sector capacity to ensure access to financing, to diversify markets and to meet trade standards (including social and environmental aspects, as well as labour rights and human rights) |
GERF 2.17/ EURF 2.13 Number of beneficiaries with access to financial services with EU support: (a) firms, (b) people (all financial services), (c) people (digital financial services) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Public sector reports - National statistical report EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems - Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
For more information about the EU RF methodological notes please see https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/eu-rfi |
Result | Indicator(s) |
Output: Strengthened capacities and support for sustainable livelihoods in rural and urban areas, including by skills development and job creation initiatives, with a specific attention to economic empowerment and inclusion ... |
GERF 2.14/ EURF 2.15 Number of people who have benefited from institution or workplace based VET/skills development interventions supported by the EU: (a) all VET/skills development, (b) only VET/skills development for digitalisation (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Public sector reports - National statistical report EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems - Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
For more information about the EU RF methodological notes please see https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/eu-rfi |
Result | Indicator(s) |
Output: Increased access to food and capacities for diversified food production, climate sensitive and inclusive agriculture, based on secure land tenure |
GERF 2.32/ EURF 2.1 Number of food insecure people receiving EU assistance (OPSYS core indicator)
(The unit of measurement for this indicator is the absolute number of individuals receiving social transfers)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention)
Additional Information:
Social transfers are defined as “non-contributory, publicly funded, direct, regular and predictable resource transfers (in cash or in kind) to poor or vulnerable individuals or households, aimed at reducing their deficits in food consumption, protecting them from shocks (including economic and climatic), and, in some cases, strengthening their productive capacity.” "Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life." Food insecurity exists whenever the availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods or the ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways is limited or uncertain. For the purpose of this indicator, individuals are included if they benefit directly from EU-funded interventions that target areas and regions affected by chronic and/or acute malnutrition and food insecurity. Areas and regions are considered as food insecure if they are classified as phase 2 and/or above on the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC). Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.
For more information about the EU RF methodological notes please see https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/eu-rfi |
GERF 2.1/ EURF 2.3 Number of smallholders reached with EU supported interventions aimed to increase their sustainable production, access to markets and/or security of land (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems - Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
EU funded initiatives supporting smallholders’ capacities to engage in inclusive and sustainable agricultural growth by (i) developing their technical, organisational and management skills and practices to implement sustainable production techniques/methods; (ii) strengthening their organisations and their relationships with the private sector, researchers and governments; (iii) increasing their competitiveness, facilitating access to markets and exports and creating/enhancing links with other actors along the value chain; (iv) securing land tenure through a variety of approaches. The support can include different activities such as making knowledge available, strengthening capacities, empowerment, support to involvement in innovation platforms, promoting (technical, social, and organisational) innovations and increased competitiveness, good governance and security of land tenure and land use rights. It can be delivered through training, advisory services, extension services and support in the following areas:
For more information about the EU RF methodological notes please see https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/eu-rfi. This can include, for example, training on New Agricultural practices, such as conservation agriculture, dry land farming initiatives, practices such as seed multiplication, applying integrated pest management (IPM), eliminating or reducing tillage. |
Result | Indicator(s) |
Output: Strengthened local, national and regional authorities’ capacity to prevent and address environmental degradation, pollution and the effects of climate change (e.g. mitigation and adaptation strategies and measures, ... |
GERF 2.5 Number of countries and cities with climate change and/or disaster risk reduction strategies: (a) developed, (b) under implementation with EU support (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Public sector reports - National strategies EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems - Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
For more information about the EU RF methodological notes please see https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/eu-rfi |
Result | Indicator(s) |
Output: Strengthened capacity of legitimate governments to develop democratic checks and balances, including an effective civilian oversight of the security sector |
Extent to which the EU-funded intervention supported the drafting of laws/regulations that outline the functioning, composition and budget of formal oversight mechanisms, including parliamentary and independent bodies (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
|
Result | Indicator(s) |
Output: Strengthened capacity of all relevant stakeholders involved in the security sector to deliver on core security functions in a manner, which is inclusive, accountable and compliant with international humanitarian ... |
Number of police officers trained by the EU-funded intervention on knowledge and skills related to their duties, international standards and human rights (disaggregated by sex) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Database of beneficiaries/participants Pre- and post-intervention test reports
Additional Information:
|
Result | Indicator(s) |
Output: Strengthened capacities of states and societies to prevent and respond to sexual and gender-based violence in crisis and post-crisis situations (whether conflict or disaster) and to ensure active women’s participation ... |
Number of prosecution and investigation services staff trained by the EU-funded intervention who have increased knowledge and/or skills in combatting gender-based violence, economic crimes, child protection, human trafficking (disaggregated by sex) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Database of beneficiaries/participants Pre- and post-intervention test reports
Additional Information:
Please specify the training topics and target participants in the local context. If monitoring capacity is limited or the context is fragile, this indicator could be simplified to monitor only the number of persons trained (without referring to an increase in knowledge and/or skills). However, in order to ensure the quality of training and the achievement of the desired result, it is recommended to assess the knowledge of participants before and after the intervention whenever possible. |
Number of penitentiary staff trained by the EU-funded intervention who increased their knowledge of and/or skills in following response protocols for different types of emergency situations/protection of minors (or another topic) (disaggregated by sex) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Database of beneficiaries/participants, Pre- and post-intervention test reports
Additional Information:
If monitoring capacity is limited or the context is fragile, this indicator could be simplified to monitor only the number of persons trained (without referring to an increase in knowledge and/or skills). However, in order to ensure the quality of training and the achievement of the desired result, it is recommended to assess the knowledge of participants before and after the intervention whenever possible. |
Result | Indicator(s) |
Output: Strengthened capacities of government, civil society and other actors for conflict prevention, including general prevention of societal violence, social conflict and violent extremism (e.g. alternative dispute resolution, ... |
GERF 2.24/ EURF 2.28 Number of people directly benefiting from EU supported interventions that specifically aim to support civilian post-conflict peace-building and/or conflict prevention (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Public sector reports - National statistical report EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems - Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
For more information about the EU RF methodological notes please see https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/eu-rfi |
Extent to which independent monitoring mechanisms of the implementation of peace agreements and/or of peace processes have been strengthened with support of the EU-funded intervention (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
|
|
Extent to which mechanisms for ensuring consultation and participation of civil society and women in peace processes and dialogue have been strengthened with support of the EU-funded intervention (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
Can be undertaken both in MS and in conflict-related settings, where the EU is operating. Indicator taken from EU Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security 2019-2024, indicator 1.6. under Objective 1 - Participation. |