Okay, apologize. So I was saying, we will have two colleagues presenting the PROSA framework and the Agri-Serve program, which is the PowerPoint presentation planned for yesterday and moved to today. Finally, we will present you the short, the medium, and then the long-term expectations, and we will close the meeting with an open discussion where each country will expose the challenges in the data collection and reporting on the 241 and the action plan to overcome them. At least we will have a discussion on this. We are looking forward to this last part because listening to your experience will help us understanding better the situation and eventually assist you in the data collection and reporting for the 241 indicator. So before I officially start with the first presentation, I leave the floor to Aspanyar for a clarification on a couple of questions raised yesterday on the FESA indicator. Aspanyar, you have the floor. Thank you very much, Sifanya. So good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to this third and final day of the virtual training on SDG 241. So before we start the day, there were a couple of questions regarding the FESA subindicator that we have included within the framework of SDG 241. The first question was from UAE, I believe, from Mr. Joma, as to if there are some social safety nets in place at the country level, do we still need to basically implement this subindicator for us to assess the food security situation? And I answered that question yesterday, but let me elaborate a bit more. Yes, inconsistency with my response from yesterday, we strongly recommend all countries to report the severity of food insecurity situation, as for the population's concern. Just to give you a bit of a background, approximately 104 countries are already reporting FES or food insecurity experience at the national level. And 55 countries at least are reporting it to FAO in the context of SDG indicator 2.1.2. And these countries include many developed countries. Let me just exemplify, I mentioned USA yesterday, apart from USA Canada is another country which is regularly producing and reporting and monitoring the food insecurity situation at their country level. Apart from that, even in GCC countries, amongst the six countries, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain are already compiling and reporting on 2.1.2, which is food insecurity experience scale. And plus Kuwait and Oman has reached out to FAO to assess the impact of COVID-19 in terms of food insecurity prevalence in their population. So on top of this, I mean, if you have any program in place at the country level or any projects for you to overcome the food insecurity situation at your country level, then the FES indicator helps you a lot in terms of you assessing the impact or the effectiveness of those campaigns, projects, and programs. So you assess the food insecurity prior to that project. And then basically, you try to see as to how effective that particular program was in terms of alleviating or minimizing the food insecurity situation at the national level when you do exposed analysis after that project. So that was just to add to my answer that I gave yesterday. On top of this, there was this another question whereby we were asked as to where we can find this Excel tool once we estimate the item parameters and the respondent parameters and the standard errors, et cetera, which are estimated by the rush model. Once we plug in the information collected, the A2S question, then how do we estimate the probabilities of moderately and severely food insecure and severely food insecure? So I will leave the link in the chat box as well for all the participants. Plus, I'm going to show you now as to where you can find it on the dedicated web page for the FES indicator. Okay. Thank you, Asfandia. We have a question from Mrs. Aliyah Almazoki. You have the floor. Asfandia, in regards to the GCC countries that are having a food insecurity plan survey to be done or is already done, I just wanted to inquire, is that along with the GCC staff? Because there is a GCC statistics center in charge of raising things to the GCC. I just wanted to confirm that because I did attend something and they were talking about it just so we can kind of try to follow up on that directly for the GCC team. So if you could please just confirm that that would be great. Exactly. We have been talking to the GCC statistical authority at the GCC level, I mean the one that you have and we have been talking to them. We have had a meeting with them a little maybe a few days ago and yes, we are in talks with them about the FES indicator and we did have a meeting with them on this indicator. So I confirm your information on this regard. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you for that. So Asfandia, can you see my screen? Yes. Okay, so I will leave this link in the chat box as well. Plus, we are going to share this with you today or maybe tomorrow sometime once we send you all the finalized presentations and other material that was presented during this training along with the recordings etc. So for the for the Excel tool that I was talking about on top of that, I mean here on this page you can find all the necessary information that you need to know for you to implement the FES information. So the FES basics then implementing the FES in different surveys and these surveys could be household surveys, these would be agriculture surveys or these could be even censuses. I mean like you can integrate these eight questions into your senses for you to collect information regarding your food security. Then I was mentioning about this FES e-learning course which is already available online. Plus, so this is the FES Excel template that I was talking about. So simply by clicking on this as you can see you know it will the Excel template will will download and it looks something like this. Okay, so once you once you estimate your items, item parameters and respondent parameters, your standard errors and and all other information which is which is required for the for the estimation of the FES indicator. You just plug that information in here and then you know the model or the Excel tool will help you you know estimate the prevalence of food insecurity at at your national level. Of course on how to use this statement all that the supplementary information is also provided on this website. So feel free to you know familiarize yourself with with the with the Excel tool. And then you know we have we have a template for reporting as well. So all the requisite information is already available on on this web page. Plus like say for example as I briefly mentioned if you want to analyze the impact of COVID-19 on the food insecurity then in this regard you know you can always reach out to us using this email address and you will be directed not to SCG 2 for one team but to our FES team which is which is working on food and nutrition and they will be very happy to assist you and support you in and in doing that exercise. So I stop here, Stefania. Okay. Perfect. We don't have any other question on this subject. So thank you for all this clarification. Now let's start the training with the first presentation which is on a false set. So let me share my screen. Okay. So we know that this virtual training focus on the SDG 2 for one which we know it's a very new indicator in tier two phase. So the data collection is a process that we just started. But FAO in particular the statistics division has a very long experience in collecting data. So the analysis carried out based on food and agricultural statistics is indeed a pillar of the FAO activities indeed explicitly mentioned in the first article of its constitution. So we have FAO stat for food and agricultural data, fish stat for aquaculture and fisheries and aqua stat for water and irrigation. They all in globe established and well-known processes of data collection and reporting mechanism and they are part of the organization's mission to improve data collection and dissemination for the development and the fight against hunger and malnutrition. So the focal points for reporting all this data are expert staff in national studies office, minister of agriculture and all the relevant energies of course of which some are in attempt and attend us today. So within this context FAO gets regularly national statistics on crops and livestock production and also environmental and social economic issues that are relevant to the teams of the SDG 2 for one. Looking in details on FAO stat which is the responsibility of our division. So the statistics division of FAO it's a database disseminated on the web. It's based on the open source technology the software platform called Phoenix where the data are free and available in all the official UN languages for over 245 countries and territories and covers all FAO regional groupings from 1961 to the most recent year available. So they are more than a million statistics available online. We have 15 domains covered in FAO stat. You can see the list here so production, trade, food balance, food security, prices and so on. Finally the data are disseminated through web pages, publications, working papers and statistical yearbooks. You have here at the bottom on this page also the link to the web page of FAO stat. I can tell you that approximately we have 160,000 users per month that are accessing the website. So for collecting the data we dispatch seven questionnaires every year divided by three teams in the statistics division. We have our team which is the environmental team which deals with the land use, the pesticide and the fertiliser questionnaires. We have the production team that deals only with the production questionnaire and finally the social and economic team that is responsible for other three questionnaires which are the trade, government expenditure and prices. So environmental team as I said is our team is of course the one linked to the 241 indicator since many sub indicators that we have seen in these days are calculated through data that comes from these three questionnaires that we touch annually. Although the primary method of collection is through the questionnaires I can tell you that some teams also consider external sources, official ones like for example the national statistics office website but also other semi-official sources for example oil world for prices. These are snapshots on how the questionnaires are visualized so just you can see that are similar to what we have dispatched for the 241 indicator. Let me now show you an overview of the focal points for some of the questionnaires in your countries and also the responses got in the last three years. So as I did yesterday for the oh sorry for the questionnaires we kindly ask you to have a look and just in case you know one is not anymore the focal point you please let us know. So the first one so the land views the questionnaire how the data are linked to the 241 indicator they so this data collected through these questionnaires I used especially to calculate the denominator and for the team 5 so variation in water availability and team 8 for the sub indicator use of agricultural diversity supportive practice. The year indicated here in the columns is the year of this patch of the questionnaire asking for the data for the previous year. So in the last three years we have got data from almost all the countries with the exceptions of Burkina Pass and Malawi and Kenya, Mali, South Africa and Uganda. So we kindly ask from these two countries to form us or any special issue maybe they might have had with this questionnaire and we really hope to receive data from all these countries in the next few weeks since the dispatch has been done last week or 10 days ago and the deadline is set for the end of the month so for the end of October. The situation for fertilizer so fertilizer question is linked to the 241 indicator with the through the team number 6 so for the sub indicator management of fertilizers. This is clearly the question where we lack mostly the data in fact here we have eight countries that didn't send us any data in the last three years so to mention Armenia Burkina Faso Malawi, you know the ABRAB emirates Kenya, Mali, South Africa and Uganda. So it's important if you can help us especially for this question to get maybe the right contacts in case they we have not contacted the good persons or as I said let us know what are these issues with this data that seems they are lacking. Pesticides linked with the team 7 so the sub indicators management of pesticides. Here as well we have seven countries that didn't provide any data in the last three years Burkina Faso Malawi, United Arab Emirates, Kenya, Mali, South Africa and Uganda again. These two questioners just mentioned are the ones as I said that comes from our team so our teams are responsible for them so please you have this presentation but we will send all the presentations again again at the end of today. If you don't know you can share these names within your institutions and you please have a look at the information and the information on any change. I would say especially for these three questions because we have dispatched this question really a few days ago so it's important that we have some updated information. About the production is probably always the question I wish the data in as a contrary are not missing indeed many data seems available for team one in general so the output value per actor and the team three risk mitigation mechanism. For this question the next dispatch is planned for May 2021 and in this case only Uganda didn't provide any data in the last three years. Finally the price is linked again as the production questioner to team one so the productivity and team three resilience. Burkina Faso, United Arab Emirates and Kenya and Uganda here didn't provide data in the last three years. Let me say again you should have downloaded already this presentation so don't worry because in case you didn't we will send again these presentations. Concluding when we will dispatch the two for one questioner and you need to respond on the 11 subindicators you are you are asked to provide data on the 11 subindicators please remember that the relevant national statistics already reported to FAO through these questioners you will probably find many information on the topics that are relevant to our indicator. So as Canada is playing that yesterday some of the national data could be used for an initial proxy reporting. This proxy approach can be used while of course the capacities to collect and analyze more detailed farm level data improve over time so and that's also the reporting on the two for one. Finally I would say that leveraging on existing expertise can be used as a basis to strengthen the national statistics process and of course plan improvements to the national service and the census processes. With this I have concluded this presentation but please note that after the thank you slide there are a couple of extra slides where there are visualized the other focal points for the last two questioners that I mean and didn't mention so far because they are not linked to the two for one but of course they are still important for the statistics division of FAO. So I'm talking about the government expenditure and the trade ones so please concentrate especially on the government expenditures one since it's the one where we miss more data so especially for Burkina, Malawi, Kyrgyzstan, Mali and Uganda and for these two questioners the next dispatch will be no sorry for this for the government's pension with the espionage will be done in May 21 while for the trade one it's in February 21. So thank you very much I don't know if there are any questions because I didn't have the chat open let me see okay no it's a sponge that sent the link so we don't have any comment I think we can now move to the next presentation then let me stop sharing my screen let me check if our colleague is online yes he's online so next presentation is an introduction to the additional mechanism to measure to measure and monitor sustainable agriculture which is the PROSA framework. So Nathan Warner is a statistician in the environmental studies team who has worked on PROSA he has worked in the areas of food security statistics and food balance sheets in our division and he has also worked for two years as a statistician at OECD. Nathan you have the floor we can't hear you can you hear me now okay yes okay and can you see my screen yes okay so thank you for the introduction Stefania yes my name is Nathan Warner and I'm working on the same team as Asfandiar and Stefania for environmental statistics thank you to both of them and also for the participants for the time dedicated to allow me to present some work that we've been doing in collaboration with another division of the food and agriculture organization which is the agro food economics division for a report called the progress towards sustainable agriculture. So I'll give an overview and some some key results of the presentation it's important to note that this this report has gone through both internal and external peer review but is not yet published so the background for the progress towards sustainable agriculture report is that we are analyzing four different food systems typologies that are grouped in terms of modern food systems traditional food systems land intensive mixed food systems and capital intensive mixed food systems these groupings were done with a principal components analysis for those are who are more interested in the statistical component of factor productivities and these groupings overlap well with other groupings that have been done and those defined in the 2017 high level panel of experts on food security and nutrition so the traditional food systems typology are those characterized by both low and land labor productivities as well as low capital stocks land intensive mixed food systems are those characterized by higher uh productivities mainly due to larger land areas available to the agricultural active population the capital intensive mixed food systems typologies are characterized by higher land productivity mainly due to more extensive use of agricultural inputs and agricultural value added due to a capital endowment for worker the the modern food systems are also capital intensive with high levels of inputs and high labor or land productivities due to factors such as high levels of mechanization and access to modern technologies in these uh in these food system typology uh agriculture is highly competitive which creates a strong agricultural export market so again these these four food systems typologies were were done using the the principal components analysis and and the the traditional food systems typology is the one that belongs to the first quartile where for the mixed food systems the second and third quartiles were split between the a a land to capital ratio and the the modern food systems are those that belong to the the highest quartile of the principal components analysis in terms of the coverage the report focuses on a set of 16 indicators it's important to note that one of the main differences of this report is that we're we're always dealing with national level statistics and the data is exclusively used from Faustat with the exception of one of the indicators that I'll show in the next slide that comes from Aquastat but these are all national level statistics so they're not they're not farm level and this is one of the the main differences between um the the analysis that is done here versus the the indicators for 2.4.1 um the the coverage in terms of time is for most of the indicators dating back to 1961 it with exceptions for a couple of indicators such as the prevalence of undernourishment and also pesticides use which have time series starting from the 1990s so as I mentioned the the data source is is exclusively national level statistics of Faustat variables computed at the at the country level that were then aggregated in terms of these four different food systems topologies we for the report we we do an analysis of looking at trends between all of the different indicators and we also implemented a mix of qualitative and quantitative approach with a with a traffic light approach also for for the progress towards sustainable agriculture report um one of the main differences between the traffic light approach that we implemented here is that as we are exclusively looking at progress over time the classifications in terms of traffic light categories which also here are red yellow and green are exclusively looking at changes over time so there while there are some some thresholds that we had to that we did implement for a few specific indicators those gains and differences are still looking at movement or towards uh movement towards or away from those physical thresholds so in in general the the the gains uh over two successive time periods are classified as uh yellow if they're maintained for a second time period they are classified as green and decreases over any two successive periods are classified as red so the last thing that to mention for regarding the scope is that the the the scope is in terms of the the crop and livestock production systems so one more thing to mention on the the traffic lights so this qualitative mix of qualitative and quantitative approach that we implemented for the traffic lights allowed us to identify sustainability hot spots for each of these different food systems typologies by identifying those areas that are most in need of improvement for the the different food systems typologies so i'd like to now go and have a closer look at the the indicators so i won't go through all of them one by one but you'll notice some strong similarities between the indicators sub indicators that are presented here as well as the dimensions with 2.4.1 so it should be mentioned that while this is a standalone process looking at national available data these indicators were originally chosen with the 2.41 framework in mind so we have the dimensions broken down in terms of economic social and environment with the different indicators listed here and a couple of additional indicators that were added to look at emissions and land use change so to jump straight to the results so i'd like here to focus on some of the more important results that are are across all of the different food systems typologies so these national level statistics across all of these sub indicators allows for a first order and complete analysis of progress towards sustainability in both qualitative and quantitative ways looking at the time trends and these the traffic light approach that was implemented so if we look at the social economic dimension we we note that across all of the different food systems typologies progress has been strong but gross output specialization tends to be the the representing the most limiting factor in terms of land use agricultural land expansion is occurring at the detriment of natural ecosystems especially for forest and crop and livestock biodiversity we've noticed that so in the analysis that was done for the report i mean the the the biodiversity for crops and livestock is key to resilience however in moving from traditional to modern food systems it does not always coincide with the market resilience which is the indicator that looks at the gross output specialization so if i in general the analysis that was done is done by looking at the indicators separately at the same time we we do in the report draw some we look at some of the indicators together to try and look at the different dimensions so for for biodiversity for example we've seen that these lower levels of diversification along with moderate levels of gross output specialization these tend to have or expose countries to much more to climate risk another one of the the for the soil and nutrient balance as well as chemical pesticides these remain a significant limiting factor to agricultural sustainability in all of the food systems typologies and this is at both high levels and low levels of inputs so at high levels of inputs the countries that are applying too much too much pesticides or too much fertilizers need to reduce the the application that they're applying whereas there are countries especially in the traditional food systems typology that still do not have access to the agricultural inputs that they need to increase their productivity and so also for lower levels of pesticides or fertilizer use these can be a limiting factor so i'll also touch on the analysis that was done by our colleagues in the another division the agro food economics division that focused on the the the drivers of sustainable agriculture so to to look at the the five steps of the the combined assessment that was done for the report these were broken down in terms of first an extensive literature review and then the identification of the quantitative indicators again keeping in mind the 2.41 framework the drivers that were selected to be analyzed were were selected based on a statistical method known as lasso so the lasso is the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator for those who are more interested in the statistical component of the report and this is a variable selection method that performs both variable selection and regular regularization in order to enhance the prediction accuracy and interpret interpretability of the statistical model that it produces so after all of this including the the lasso analysis the final selection of the driver and sub indicator relationships were looked at and they were broken down in terms of these four different key global drivers which are demographic dynamics inequality farm size structure global integration of agriculture where things are looked at such as foreign direct investment and agricultural exports and government support to agriculture so one of the the key things that I would I would highlight in terms of the analysis that was done for the drivers that is kind of covers all across all of the themes but especially government support is that it is one of the most important and direct mechanisms that are available to policy makers to encourage sustainable agricultural development so that's an overview of the report I'd also maybe like to share with you from directly from the report one of the how the traffic light analysis is presented so as I mentioned the traffic light methods that are applied for the report are extensively looking at progress over time and it allowed us to identify these sustainability hot spots for each of the different food systems to apologies so in terms of the capital intensive food systems for example that are the food systems to apology that are characterized by higher levels of agricultural inputs we can see for example that fertilizers and pesticides remain one of the key limiting factors towards uh for obtaining sustainable agriculture in this food systems to apology and when the report becomes available you can see the the different sustainability hot spots that are identified for the other food systems to apologies um in terms of the the the driver analysis so I'd like maybe just to touch on the the analysis that was done in terms of the looking at the indicators and the drivers of change so I mentioned in the last slide that government support to agriculture is one of the most important mechanisms that is available to countries to promote sustainable agriculture and we can see these strong positive relationships in terms of progress for government assistance to agricultural outputs for each of for several of these different sub indicators and as opposed to government support to agricultural inputs where there is a strong movement against sustainability um so that's an overview of the report thank you very much for your time again as I mentioned in the first slide the the report should become available soon it's already gone through internal and external peer review and but um to highlight that this is a separate process from maybe you guys can see my my message from our Bob who's uh who's uh asking me to uh to highlight and right rightfully so that this is a a separate process from the 2.4.1 uh process and looking at national nationally available data but still trying to to draw some some preliminary results in terms in terms of progress towards sustainable agriculture so uh let me see if I can go back to so I mean that's uh that's the the uh presentation of the report and I'm gonna stop sharing my screen for right now and see if there are any questions so I can also go to the the chat box we don't have any questions so far so let's wait some seconds in case someone is thinking about it okay seems we don't have any question uh okay if there are any questions that that arise of course I mean they they will be communicated to Stefania and Esfandiar no and I'd be happy to help follow up with uh with any questions that that may arise exactly exactly so thank you very much Nathan and uh yes if the partitioner will have a question later we will contact you we will be we will put them in touch with you so thank you again thank you thank you all for your time okay well uh we are then uh ready for the next presentation which is done by Flavio Bolliger a colleague of us in the statistical division he will be presenting the SDG 241 indicator in the context of the agri-serve program and the 50 by 2030 initiative Flavio has a degree in agronomy and another one in economy he was the coordinator of agriculture uh of the brazilian institute of geographic and statistics from 2003 to 2015 at FAO he contributed to the implementation of the global strategy to improve agricultural rural statistics as a research coordinator and since 2018 he acts as a technical coordinator in the survey team in the statistical division of FAO he has experience in the economy focusing on social economic statistics acting on agricultural statistics agribusiness economic statistics and sustainable development Flavio you have the floor you want that I share your presentation hi good morning um I can try to share to share the my by myself let's see um you have the share bottom yeah I did it not yet okay starting great you managed okay so it's working no good morning everyone thank you the organization for this presentation um the idea is to to talk a bit about the instruments that FAO has promoting to complete the different SDGs linked to uh agricultural survey in particular the agri-serve program and the fifth by 30 initiative so I cover a bit about the project it's managed by agri-serve program the agri-methodology and the how the indicator two for one is integrated with it and similar for feedback initiative but in this case including some information about country onboarding um okay uh as you know FAO for many many years from since the 50s last last year last century uh promoting and supporting countries on implementing uh census um some initiatives was done in the 80s on methodology for continual survey and no data on production I think like that but in fact um around 2008 with this crisis of prices of agricultural was um uh evaluation about agricultural statistics in the world shows that the availability of data was not so not enough or the decline the the quantity of the quality of agricultural statistics uh around the world and uh an initiative for many institutions uh started a project named global strategy for improving agricultural statistics this initiative developed update methodologies for agricultural statistics and developed a series of handbooks uh and one of the main most important handbooks is about uh agricultural survey implementation named agris it was the name then by this initiative they had this handbook agricultural integrated survey integrated because uh the proposal goes beyond the traditional agricultural statistics looking for economic social and environmental aspects of the agriculture also and um two or three years ago the statistics division established this survey team a new branch in the statistics vision FAO running this agris survey program and the idea is to support country on improving or implementing agricultural surveys to improve the availability of basic and uh agricultural statistics and nowadays this agris survey program has a running three projects one is west side funded by west side uh bringing technical assistance and financial support for three countries Cambodia, Senegal, Uganda, a Gates project uh promoting uh uh technical assistance for other countries namely Armenia, Ecuador, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Nepal and Uruguay and uh a very new initiative program project is the fifth by 30 initiative that started this year or 2019 and goes to 2030 this is a more strong or more complete and sophisticated project in larger one also pro providing technical assistance and financial support in many aspects on the production of agricultural statistics the agris survey program also uh do support countries from other research national resources and this technical operation program that are FAO resources funding also some support to to to could support countries well the uh as I mentioned the agris survey methodology was developed by the global strategy you can see the links for for global strategy for for the agris handbook and all the materials uh how to implement the the survey and and the proposal is a multi-purpose and modular survey uh in a cycle of 10 years uh that has this core model that is uh data collected every year and some thematic models rotating models that is uh uh that collect data uh with less uh um frequency and and we are you can see in the screen uh this standard proposal in terms of frequency for different aspects economy labor method traditional medicine environment and machinery all this proposal and and the handbook uh was finalized in the beginning of 2018 so it's important to highlight that in that time the requirements for the educator 241 was not established yet uh the approval of this methodology for 241 happened later and then the proposal of for agris as it is in the handbook do not include all requirements for the 241 uh indicator I'm sure that Erbar already mentioned uh different documents developed to to come up with this issue in fact we developed two options in terms of uh collecting data for 241 using agris methodology the option one is to attach to the core model uh a set of questions in fact uh 32 additional questions in order to uh collect all requirements for the 241 so in the sense attached to the core uh the 11 sub indicator could be collecting the same year and releasing the same year the other uh alternative is to um linked uh the requirement to form uh two different rotating models in this case because in this case uh uh in fact this rotating models cover part of the requirements so uh you need less additional questions to cover all the requirements but in this case if you are going in the in a year with the economic model in another year with the argument model the the sub indicators the reference year for the sub indicator will be different for different indicators I ask you to wait a minute because I should put my cable in the computer like like last like of a minute please okay um well the initiative is a partnership with different institutions um and the idea is more or less the same to improve the capacity of the countries and promote the production of good statistics but have a special focus on the sggs including the 241 to help countries you can see here the link for the 5th by 30 initiative um where you can find more information the um the onboarding process already started in fact um we start with the inception contact with Cambodia, Uganda and Ethiopia already so in 2021 some approved pre-approved countries that are printed that were working before FAO and the World Bank and two new countries in 2021 in 2022 another six pre-approved countries and more five new countries in 2023 six new countries so the the idea is to cover 50 countries uh up to uh 2030 so that's the the aim of the project and as I explained before the project is covering not only technical assistance but also helping countries on funding data collection it's important to stress that the project is devoted to middle low and low income countries the approach for 5th by 30 is similar to to agris uh with our core model and rotating model but in this case uh it was organized with a cycle of three years including um one model more on economics this income label and productivity uh the model on production methods and environment and machinery and this uh 5th by 30 um we have two programs one named agricultural survey program that cover all agricultural holdings the non-household sector in the household sector and with focus on agricultural statistics a second program uh known farm household in the who are who are included in the target population and additional model uh on live standard is applied there's a more uh uh to to the goal is to to achieve some savings in terms of implementing uh also rural uh information rural development information in the same system in the two cases uh the requirements for two four ones uh is already incorporated to the tools so uh in particular the year for the production methods and environment so the idea in the cycle is that year produce all the requirements for two four one so uh as this method tools are developed in the last year so all requirements is already there and the tools are available in their website uh in fact uh in the case of two four one one we have some variations of the tools a questionnaire for household sector uh adapt questionnaire for non-household sector questionnaire when you are going just one visit or with two visits postplant and post-hybrid visit and so these variations on all these cases the two four one requirements are included in the PME the production methods environment questionnaire well that's what I have to present so uh thank you again as I said to to nedan anyway if participant in some cases will contact us with some question for you we will put you uh in in contact with them so thank you uh a lot okay thank you very much thank you for the opportunity and good luck in the work okay thank you flavio thank you bye bye bye so just one more question uh before flavio leaves uh or maybe a comment in fact so flavio you may want to basically uh mention or highlight as to how country can approach you if they qualify to be low and lower middle income countries and they fulfill the criteria to be one of the 50 countries to be considered for flio support on 50 by 20 13 initiative so what's the process for that I mean if you can briefly explain that to the participants so that they know okay um well the the support is for uh middle and low middle low income countries according to the the the criteria for bank the the project is managed by a fair word bank and in fact and uh for for the for the management of the project uh it was established a project managing team based on on how in your home and the the express of interest in participation in the project should send by this project team and this is the main limitation but in general I would stress also that the idea is to the countries after some years depends on the capacity of the country the support can goes from five to eight years start with a preparation phase with trainings and then implementation phase and the idea is to help countries to run at least three or four years of the survey and and then the phase out where the idea is that the country has the technical and financial capacity to to run the the system so so one important fact is the commitment of the country and not only in terms of providing teams and staff to to implement but also covering in the over time the cost of the survey implementation I share in the chat the contact information the the manager is elisa mohammedou the person who should be contacted but more information can be um get from this generic email info at 5 by 30 o'clock and flag is just one more reflection if there are countries which don't qualify to be low and lower middle income countries but that still want it want to have some kind of support from FAO in terms of adopting the survey instruments or the program of 50 by 2030 then in that case I mean what kind of support can we provide into what extent yeah we have already case on that uh indonesia is this last one that approached us with this intention and uh others that country we are supporting in uh in this case uh the request should be uh um present to to the to the statistical division of FAO the director of hoster hoster and uh different possibilities in some cases the the country has researched to fund the technical assistance and the data collection uh in other case uh FAO can establish a technical cooperation program uh with FAO resources on the statistics we have some rules for that now the technical cooperation program is not so long so more in general one or two years not more than that and and the statistics is open to support any country any country member the the only thing that 5x30 research is devoted to middle and lower income countries but the other country can apply to like to FAO and we can give the support and the methodology of argues or 5x30 to these tools for for studies in general and for the statistics and we go to good statistics as well okay thank you do you have any other questions from there for Flavio no uh I I don't have any questions unless the participants wants to ask any question while Flavio is here you know it's an opportunity for you to get to know more about uh both these programs agris survey and 50 by 2030 which not only help you uh make your agriculture statistical more stronger in terms of agriculture surveys but it helps you collect information on several sdgs apart from 241 so uh by by by implementing the 50 by 2030 initiative I mean you are not gonna be able to report on 241 but as well 231 232 501 and partially Flavio if I believe 1231 as well which is on of western losses right yes no it's possible yeah and and the regional indicators also and depends on the region well this is a kind of customization that we do in any in every country in terms of covering the interest of regional or national indicators okay we have a question from mr south so please you have the floor mr or mrs south so you can unmute yourself and take your question can you hear me yes yes I was wondering if Mr Flavio can share his contact details uh specifically uh his email so that if we have for some issues we can also directly uh reach to him thank you thank you okay Flavio maybe you want to write it in the in the chat Flavio I think he lost the connection because I don't see him online anymore uh we will anyway ask him to write okay thank you or I can write I mean as soon as I leave the floor to as one guy I can write the email uh we don't have any other question for now so I think we can move on yes so now I give the floor again to as one guy for the last session um this is a special session for us as I said at the beginning of the today because we would like to really hear your your voices uh we will not we would like not to use the the chat anymore but leaving each country so each lead the representative to speak and tell us in a proper way the expectations the plan and the specific issues you might have uh we will be asking like a sort of round table to leave the space for all countries to speak so first as for the year we'll have uh we'll present some slides uh I think then then we can have a break and then after the break we we have the open discussion so okay I see Flavio is again online who so he put his contact address on the chat so thank you Flavio there were no other questions uh so we really thank you a lot for your time thank you thank you okay bye bye okay so as one guy you you have the floor for the last presentation thank you Stefania please confirm as to whether you can see my presentation yes okay so over the course of last two days we uh discussed the conceptual and methodological basis of SG241 its data collection instruments and tools and a mechanism for reporting it back to FAO this presentation will be addressed by FAO until so far our planned future course of action and expectations in terms of countries readiness to report on the indicator in the short medium and long term our ultimate aim obviously is to maximize country reporting on SG241 and thereby gradually classify it as tier one our time in summary this presentation will cover the following aspects the methodological front the capacity development activities that we have carried out over the course of last three years country data collection activities and reporting of the indicator to FAO towards the end of the presentation as Stefania mentioned we will openly discuss the constraints that impede the country's effort to implement the indicator and thereafter it's data collection and reporting to FAO and deliberate the means and ways on how we can jointly overcome these constraints so by now you may have a very good idea that the methodology of 241 is based on the farm survey that is used as a main data collection instrument or vehicle to collect information on all the 11 sub indicators that constitute the framework of 241 reaching at this stage where the methodology is now has been a long participatory process of discussion with country experts international organizations civil society academia and several rounds of testing and follow-up technical work on the development of the methodological in support of the farm level approach around which the methodology has been developed was approved and endorsed by the IAEG STG in November 2018 in this respect three expert group meetings were organized to elaborate the methodology further we regularly presented statistics we carried out an online global consultation whereby we sent a different intervals while we were detailing the methodology to all the national statistical offices of the member states of FAO and we received substantive feedback during that process which we then reflected in and while we were developing the methodology we also conducted several webinars with interagency and expert group on sustainable development goals members for from the testing perspective we conducted several rounds of testing so in this regard we first desk tested the earlier version of the methodology in Bangladesh Kirgis Republic, Ecuador, Belgium and Rwanda then we conducted cognitive tests of the survey questionnaire that we have developed for SEG 241 that I showed yesterday as equal inflation then we carried out extended field tests of the survey questionnaire in Bangladesh whereby we selected 420 agriculture holdings within four districts of Bangladesh which I was referring to in my presentation the day before yesterday and yesterday as part of the results of each sub indicator and then in turn we tested the FAO data collection questionnaire that Sifanya mentioned and illustrated in detail yesterday in 45 countries now as I was mentioning earlier all the background documents or the support documents have already been finalized and uploaded to FAO STG portal that I showed you yesterday as well these documents include the methodological note, the survey questionnaire, the sampling guidance for sampling design, the numerator and manual, the calculation procedure, the data entry guidance etc so all the requisite information that is needed for you to collect to prepare for data collection to data collection processing analysis and final reporting to FAO has already been completed using the farm survey approach so you can easily implement all these documents by going to the FAO STG portal. On the capacity development front more than 50 plus countries have already been trained on the methodology these include presentation at African Commission on Agriculture Statistics in 2017 we also presented at FAO committee on agriculture in 2018 and we are supposed to present to the committee on agriculture next in November 2020 as well so we have a meeting scheduled with them on the progress that we have made until so far on the same program. The methodology was also presented at Brussels briefing in 2019 whereby it was presented to all the European Commission or European Union countries and as well at the International Conference on Agriculture Statistics in India in 2019. We have also conducted bilateral trainings in 2019 for three countries so I was in Bangladesh, Vietnam and Oman for a week each different time periods in 2019 whereby we trained these countries on the STG 241 methodology and amplified Bangladesh has already tested the indicator at the national level of which I showed you the result and with Vietnam for the time being has just completed the testing exercise and they have entered the data entry and data processing and analysis phase. We have also trained 10 African countries in 2019 in collaboration with the United Nation Economic Commission for African Region and Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture. The countries that were trained were Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda and Tambia. As part of this particular training which was held in 2019 the training was not that extensive because we only had three hours to present the entire methodology of STG 241 which by now you may have realized that it's a very complex indicator if not complex it's a very you know there is a lot of content that needs to be covered as part of the methodology so that training was more of an introductory in nature. We also trained 17 countries from Asia and North Africa in 2019 I'm not going to go through the list of these countries some of those countries are participating in this in this virtual training as well and 18 countries from Asia and Pacific in 2019 which included many countries like Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia etc. On account of the unexpected outbreak of coronavirus this year instead of in-person bilateral trainings that we envision we instead organized virtual trainings for STG 241 so apart from the from the two other batches that we have trained already which I spoke about earlier. This is a third batch of countries that we are currently providing technical assistance to so in total three days virtual training for group one was organized from 8 to 10 September then the second virtual training was organized from 22 to 24 September where by 12 countries from from Latin American region participated in that training and the current one is the third and the last virtual training for 2020 whereby we are participated by participants from from from 10 countries. On top of these virtual trainings we have been focused throughout in 2020 on e-learning courses for STG 241 that have now been developed and uploaded online we shared that with you upfront before as an invitation to this meeting you can always go back to these e-learning courses and get from you know more acquainted yourself with STG 241. We have also translated the key documents which include the methodological note the FAO data collection questionnaire and FAO survey questionnaire into three UN languages Arabic Spanish and French and we took advantage of and leverage our statistics division colleagues especially the agris and 50 by 2030 team country missions to raise STG 241 awareness confirm information on the national focal points and assess national data for 2021 we will hopefully that we will get over with the coronavirus pandemic which is curtailing our travel to countries so hopefully the situation will be will be improved if not then we will continue to provide virtual trainings as well as bilateral virtual trainings on STG 241 if there are some countries which are which are more in terms of implementing or testing or you know data analysis of the of the information that is already available at the country level vis-a-vis the 11 sub indicator of STG 241. Our plan also is to translate all the remaining support documents including the e-learning course in all six official UN languages including including Russian and Chinese. We also plan to develop digital lectures on STG 241 so hopefully once these digital lectures will be developed it's going to be posted online and then we will go into more details in terms of once the information is collected how do you then process that information each step of the way for you to be able to construct the 11 sub indicator and finally report the dashboard and the aggregate STG 241. On the data collection front the FAO data collection questionnaire and reporting protocols have already been developed which briefly which we covered as part of the presentation presented by Stefania yesterday and the following activities have already been accomplished while others are still planned for the remaining time in 2020. So from December 2019 to April 2020 we sent this questionnaire to 45 countries to test it from the content structure and flow perspective. From in August 2020 Stefania already mentioned that we carried out a comprehensive global dispatch that was sent to all member states of FAO from September to November soon after you know once we are done with these virtual trainings. We have already started receiving quite a few replies from from our member states in reaction to our dispatch so we will start an analysis gap filling quality assessment and quality control processes. So if your country is one of the of the several which are yet to get back to us in reaction to our comprehensive dispatch in August we would strongly urge you to kindly do so in the next couple of weeks. In this respect the countries which are from which these replies are still pending we are going to be sending our first reminder hopefully to all. So in December 2020 we plan to drop the analysis and finalizing all the information for United Nations State Division reporting. Now the actual reporting of SE 241 is due for 2022 and will be conditional on sufficient data being reported by countries to prepare storylines and construct global and regional aggregates and trends. For 2021 data collection cycle we have the following recurrent activities already planned from January to July 2021. We will of course embark on the preparation of the next dispatch for sending it to countries. From July to November again we will be conducting the data collection analysis gap filling quality control and quality assessment processes and December 2021 we will then have dropped analysis and finalization for UNSD reporting which is due for for early 2022. As presented yesterday by Stefania the low response rates to the 2019 SEG 241 pilot dispatch were both expected and indicative showing in general the complexity of the indicators methodology and lack of sufficient and relevant data required to report data on the indicator. This was obvious because the indicator is brand new and as mentioned that in context of 241 we are not only entrusted in reporting trends but we are making sustainability assessments to classify the farms and its agriculture area green yellow and red status using a traffic light approach. And for us to use the traffic light approach we need to have some questions added to the current agriculture service system of the country for them to be able to make these to to to basically in place these sustainability criteria and then come up with with the with the traffic light approach. So in the short run with in the very short term in fact for 2020 and 2021 we expect that several countries will only be able to report on the partial dashboard of SEG 241 based on the count based on the current farm level data approach. So as I as I was mentioning earlier even if your country is able to report on one sub indicator or maybe two or maybe three even that is a good starting point because that will give us an idea as to where you stand in terms of in terms of data availability capacity and other aspects in terms of resources as well for you to report on SEG 241. So this will at least give us an idea and then we can engage with you bilaterally on how to bridge the data availability gap or the capacity gap or you know the resources gap. So it will help us pinpoint all those issues. In the medium to long term however in addition to existence existing farm survey based methodology we have initiated a work program to explore the possibility of developing a solution based on alternative data sources for selected sub indicators primarily in the environmental dimension and some in the social dimension as well which in combination complementarity with farm survey will facilitate countries reporting on SEG 241. In parallel outreach and capacity development activities will continue in close coordination with the agris program and 50 by 2030 initiative and other potential external partners in support of detailed farm level data for SEG 241 reporting. Just to highlight here I mean the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture has basically approved a project for three countries in Asia whereby they are currently supporting three countries to adopt and implement and report on SEG 241. Apart from that we are going to be bilaterally supporting like I mentioned Vietnam whom we have been working with since last year Bangladesh who was part of the testing exercise and with 10 more last for which we have already approved the project and we are going to be working with them very closely through our regional office in Asia to help them you know test the indicator at the country level and then help them produce data and report it to SEG 241. Apart from that several countries you know in as part of the previous virtual training for the Latin American region many of them express interest you know in terms of testing SEG 241 and in terms of implementing and reporting it back to SEG. So as highlighted yesterday the methodological note of SEG 241 discusses the possibility of using a combination of different data sources as an alternative option for countries that wishes to do so and we saw the example of of Canada. So if you have robust agriculture statistical other agriculture statistical system like say for example administrative data or agriculture or livestock senses or if you have more environmental monitoring system or geographical information system that is remote sensing or household survey or any other ad hoc or dipstick studies which you believe respond to the criteria of SEG 241 and can based on these sources you can assign sustainability statuses then you know you feel free to use those those other additional data sources for reporting on 241. So for the time being as as you can see in the matrix agriculture for the agriculture survey all the sub indicators for the time being where the methodology is designed in culture survey can be a one unique data collection source for for for good collecting information on the 11 sub indicators. Now the indicators of 241 may seem intuitive and cost effective however both technically and operationally it is not as straightforward and involves several challenges that needs to be addressed before its use. Having said that alternative data sources can certainly complement the farm survey data both pre and post its collection. In general the alternative data sources vary widely both within and across countries in terms of its organization robustness richness quality scope and availability just to give you some perspective the alternative data sources usually have different objectives scale of assessment scope and definition and hence it becomes problematic because the moment you start using alternative data sources you are national international standards and the scope and hence it becomes very problematic in terms of international international comparability of different countries. Plus alternative data sources have different temporal resolutions and periodicity of the data set as I was mentioning we would like countries to report sg2 for one every three years and there are many sources which are not updated or not not updated regularly at a predetermined frequency at a country level and hence the usage of alternative data sources from that perspective becomes a bit of a challenge. There are also sampling issues there are differences in design size under and or norm coverage of agriculture holdings so to go back to my yesterday reflections if there is a household survey which has information collected for the ADFES questions but if the agriculture holdings within that sample is not adequately reflected or if it is not big enough for it to be nationally representative then we cannot use that information for reporting on sg2 for one. Likewise different alternative data sources may have different unit of measurement as time and again we have been saying that sg2 for one for us the unit of observation and the unit of measurement is agriculture holding and the agriculture land aga that it owns manages and operates so if the alternative data source has another unit of measurement how do you then associate that with agriculture land aga and hence it becomes problematic. Adjusting and harmonizing different baselines across different countries for the same source or different baselines for different sources within the same country so it's another issue which needs to be taken into account before using alternative data sources and lastly combining or integrating data from different data sources is typically complicated and challenging due to lack of efficient and adequate mechanism for inter or intra institutional coordination at the at the national level so if you are using one unified single farm survey approach all the information is controlled and managed by one single institution which usually is the national statistical office offices or maybe ministry of agriculture but the moment you broaden the data collection sources if like say for example some information is coming from the ministry of environment other is coming from the ministry of agriculture yet some information is coming from some specialized institution that is responsible for geographical information system etc then you know you need to make sure that there is a sufficient coherent coordination amongst all these institutions so that you can report the indicator without any problem in a streamlined way so what I just discussed this means that several aspects needs to be carefully considered prior to using alternative data sources in order to produce consistent and reliable data and set the thresholds as for the recommended periodicity of the indicator so before using alternative data sources it is advised that the use of the available set fulfill the following criteria so I mentioned this yesterday too and I'm re highlighting this again because this is very important so first of all it should be demonstrated that alternative data sources gives at least the same result as the farm surveys it can be reflected in or attributed to agriculture land area in the country considering the different farm typologies and agricultural regions that I described to you yesterday it can be associated with the country agriculture production system particularly crop livestock and the combination in between so usually the problem is that some alternative data sources are primarily focused on either on crops or there are studies which are our surveys focused only on livestock but there are none which focused on both combined so this needs to be carefully looked into account it should capture the same aspect or phenomenon as proposed by the farm survey as described in the subindicator metadata sheets the alternative data sources should be representative of the situation at the national level with respect to agricultural land area taking into account many agricultural region types usually the cases and this was the case in India they mentioned to us that we would like to use alternative data sources for some of the environmental subindicator and then once we engage with them and once we ask them okay fine what is your source of information what is the coverage of that particular source and the problem was that India has approximately I believe if I'm not mistaken 24 different states and that alternative in data source information was available only for two or three states so if it is not nationally representative then you know we cannot really use it for SG241 monitoring another important point is that alternative data sources should be compliant with international and national standards and classification system in order to ensure the indicator can be internationally comparable again this is the point that lagging over and over again but this is very important if the information by countries compile using different different standards or classification systems then we cannot really compare countries both both vis-a-vis each other in a cross time then the data should be available at the same level of territorial desegregation as is the farm survey and by this I mean to say that basically the certification variable that we mentioned that is crop livestock mixed and the household non household and irrigated non irrigated especially for some of the economic subindicators are very important particularly in case of productivity where we want to compare likes with likes and then lastly the data collection here and here is how more genius across so if there are alternative data sources which were you know for which the information is available only for 2010 then you know it becomes a problem as to how based on such dated information you can say something about sustainability in 2020 or 2021 so of course there are techniques and ways and means on on on on doing so by using interpolation extrapolation growth rates etc but you know it will be it will defeat the sole purpose of you analyzing the real sustainability that is prevailing now in the agriculture sector of the country so it is always advisable to to have all the subindicators using the same the same year and at least the same periodicity finally using different sources implies that mechanism should be put in place at the country level again to coordinate the streamline flow of required information generated by various institutions to report on sg241 presentation yesterday alternative data sources can be used to complement farm survey data whereby countries can replace the farm survey question when alternative data sources of information are available and respond to the criteria it can complement farm survey question by providing additional contextual information helpful to probe the right answers to the questions that are posed to the to the holder this can be done exempt or during the data collection by providing contextual information to the enumerators or the surveyors before going to the field and it can also be used to cross check the farm survey results to identify any inconsistencies and to ensure its robustness this exposed information can be used to triangulate and validate the survey data after the data collection and analysis has been completed as highlighted earlier we will soon kick start the we we have in fact already but kick started the work on developing practical guidance on how alternative data sources can be used for sg241 for its measurement and monitoring as a first step between October and December 2020 we will work on exploring the potential use of earth observation or remote sensing for reporting on selected sub indicator of sg241 primarily in the environmental dimension we also have a plan to expand this effort in January and March 2021 to include other data sources for reporting on selected sub indicators of 241 especially in the social dimension during the same period we will be with the help of experts will draft test protocols or field test protocols as we call it more technically and select countries for testing the approach developed using the remote sensing data vis-a-vis the farm survey approach in April to June 2021 we will execute or carry out actual tests and data analysis for triangulating the the farm survey and earth observation data from July to August we will then draft guidelines on how remote sensing or earth observation or GIS data and other sources of information can be used to report on sg241 from October to December 2021 we will finalize the guidelines and then disseminate it to countries for its implementation and use so Sifanya I stop here if there are any questions I will yes the question so if you are in the English channel maybe the translators can translate the question for us so for the time being the way the biodiversity indicator is addressed I mean the way the criteria are designed again the farm survey is a unique data collection tool to collect information on all these on the different criteria which are selected as part of the biodiversity for the time being for biodiversity the information that we have received from countries now is they are using a proxy of organic agriculture so which we which I mentioned earlier we are not going to report sg241 using proxies okay we are going to report sg241 using using the actual information that is either collected to farm survey or which will be collected you know once we develop this option for us to use the alternative data sources so I'm afraid I don't have any any answer for you up until so far in terms of you know as to what other alternative data sources are currently currently reporting for the biodiversity subindication okay we have another question from russia mr. Trifonov another general question regarding the legal aspect could you clarify in brief who determines or endorses the list of subindicators for this or other sdg indicators and necessity of using the specific subindicators is this the inter-igets group on sdg or any un bodies and organization a g fao for 241 what is the procedures for endorsement of them okay so the procedure for endorsement I explained that is part of my first presentation on the very first day so united nation statistical commission constituted this group which was called inter agency expert group on sustainable development goals okay and this this group uh compose comprises of 28 member states and I believe russian federation is is one of the member of this group if I'm not mistaken we can check and you know I can see if I'm in the meanwhile if you can check the membership yeah so so this group was constituted I mean initially once for I'm not talking about the fao 21 sdgs or sdg 241 but more generally when this group started working back in 2006 15 16 but then all the 231 sdg indicators were classified into three tiers tier one tier two and tier three tier one being those for which methodology is established and data is regularly reported by the countries tier two being those for which methodology has been established or developed and and uh but no data collection currently exists at the country level and tier three being those for which neither the methodology nor the data existed so they adopted this process then you know as part of the methodological development process they assigned it to the relevant custodian un agencies so fao was made custodian of 21 sdg indicators including 241 now as we started developing the it was not that fao was working in isolation uh on on the methodology and then it was prescribing into countries no the the approach that we took and that had all custodian to an agency has taken is that we involved countries experts especially the national statistical offices and ministry of agriculture uh they were involved you know in these discussions throughout a different stages of the methodological development process and then you know we were regularly providing feedback to the iag sdg or interagency expert group on sustainable development goals at at various milestones and then we would be receiving feedback from the iag sdg including the feedback from the national statistical offices and and and we covered all that feedback and then resubmitted to iag sdg for their approval endorsement so just to mention the sdg 241 was initially submitted for approval and endorsement in November 2017 but the iag sdg group back then told us that no you need to further test the methods and you need to you know incorporate the feedback of of the group before the they then they may consider it for for final endorsement so we went back to the drawing board we conducted the tests which i spoke about as part of my presentation and we went back to iag sdg which then in November 2018 approved and endorsed the methodology of sdg 241 now uh but the but the process didn't stop there and in in November 2018 the methodology was approved conditional on the fact that there was few concerns raised by selected countries around the biodiversity subindicator and they wanted us to revise some criteria that we selected back then as part of that version of the methodology so we came back and then in early 2000 early 2019 we constituted this informal group of countries which was led by canada and which included by the way russian federation as well as as as one of its member and then you know we we started um um discussion with this informal group and we told them that you come up with with an alternative criteria for biodiversity subindicator and we will discuss and then if we reach a consensus solution then we will be submitted to iag sdg and that's exactly what happened so the group came up with the uis criteria for for the biodiversity subindicator and then we resubmitted these refinements to the iag sdg in November 2019 so in a nutshell to cut it short the methodology has been through a process so it was not that i feo on its own was leading and driving the process but in fact the the countries were were more in control of the methodology of sdg 241 um before uh before we submit to iag sdg for its approval and just one more point that i would like to emphasize that the current methodology which is around the farm survey approach this was also on on request from several countries who mentioned to us that basically um combining information from different data sources may be too challenging for them so come up with a simple approach whereby we use one single data collection tool for us to collect information on all the 11 subindicators of 241 and hence you know the the the methodological note of 241 currently reflects that but having said that there were other countries too who mentioned that we would still like to use alternative data sources and now we have started working on that line as well so see you in time here to have a break thank you so so next steps of course we don't stop here it's not that we have conducted this virtual training and we stop our collaboration with your respective countries this point on or no we would like to build up build on this training um and uh you know we will ultimately our aim be that your country is able to um basically implement the sdg 241 framework at the country level now obviously our first and top most priority is to help you enhance uh your uh policy national policy making and decision making at the country level so that's our top most priority because that's what matters I mean sdg 241 monitoring is important but that came come as a secondary objective so um as I mentioned uh a short while ago uh we would share with you the stop taking uh excel sheet it's a sheet that can't consist of uh the key um variables data items of sdg 241 um this will help you assess the data gaps in your current agricultural statistical systems where vis-a-vis the data requirements of sdg 241 so this is the very first step which I've been emphasizing um time and again we would also request you to respond to the FAO 2020 data collection questionnaire by filling it in using the available data um the due date for for this questionnaire was set at 30th of September um we are going to be sending reminders as part of our standard uh procedure to all member states that haven't replied as of yet hopefully by tomorrow so if you come across this questionnaire I mean feel free to add as much information which is available um it's perfectly all right I mean if you even if you have information on one sub indicator available for the time being even that is a good starting point um as we um will um you know together move towards uh uh making sure that you know in the in the next couple of years your country will be able to report on the entire dashboard um we would also like you to prepare a two or three page action plan um their details the implementation of and reporting on sdg 241 so the questions that I showed you on the previous slide will have you in a elaborate document what we need from you is maybe simple one page or two page in two or three paragraphs uh outlining you know the constraints that we just discussed with a few countries um that inhabit reporting on the entire dashboard and then what action would you take and by when for your countries to be able to collect data on sdg 241 and report it back to flo in that same action plan in one paragraph you can also request for for further technical assistance and it will be very helpful for us but because we are now in process of organizing ourselves for the next year in terms of our work plan so if you can share your um insights with us in terms of your plans then that will be very good because we will start incorporating those activities in our in our plan for the for the next year and with this I thank all of you all the participants I really enjoyed you know delivering this training to such a dynamic and active group we we are hoping that we will carry forward this relationship that we have built with you over the past three days into into the into the future with the ultimate aim of course uh to to make sure that your country is sdg 241 ready and plus in the process I mean the ultimate goal is obviously to to improve your agriculture statistical system so that you can make more informed and appropriate and aggregate policies and decision-making at the at the country so thank you very much don't hesitate to write us using this uh the email address sg 241 that indicator at fwo or g if you have any further question comments feedback that you would like to give us so thank you very much okay thank you espandia before closing I would like to ask for the last uh uh well this time it's not a quiz this time it's an evaluation so now that we are at the end of this three-day streaming uh we can really request you to evaluate this course uh remember it's always anonymously so you should fill this online evaluation form that is displayed now so please answer each question for uh to the best of your ability we will use this feedback to improve the structure and the organization of the course for future training so please be reminded the main goal uh of this course was to help you gain a clear understanding of this g indicator and it's the methodology so I leave now the floor to the leaders so maybe espandia you want to stop sharing the screen maybe we can switch on the video now so I leave uh the questioner open on the background so in case someone I didn't reply yet I still have time um I think it's now to officially close this third round of the virtual training on the sdg241 I would like to thank officially the translator Egor and Senya they have done a great job and translated everything very professionally and carefully and I think I can thank espandia on behalf of all the participants we are receiving a lot of nice messages so thank you all uh the okay wait let me close the evaluation okay I close the evaluation okay so I was saying so espandia we are getting a lot of messages so the training was carried out in a perfect way so I thank you on behalf of all the participants uh the questions uh were answered with patience and comprehensively uh and so last but not least I would like to thank all of you for having participated in this third round of the virtual training we hope you have enjoyed it and that you have helped you we have helped you to gain a clear understanding of the methodology on the sdg241 indicator in the end these extraordinary circumstances with the pandemic allowed us to train more than 60 participants and considering also the first through two rounds of the virtual training we have trained almost 300 participants so this is really a success and this is for sure something that would have been very hard to achieve with an in-person training uh please remember that you are more than welcome to contact us anytime through the our sdg email account and espandia showed more than once as promised we will send the certificate of attention to all participants that were connected for the three days and we will also share the recording and the final report of this training uh I leave the floor to espandia for the last closure but in the meantime I ask you if you wish to switch on the the video and I take a photo of all of us together and while espandia is is talking so espandia you have the floor so again thank you very much stephania um uh I would you know let let me let me say by uh let me close by saying this that it was a real pleasure to get to uh train all of you of course as I mentioned earlier our collaboration with your countries doesn't stop here we would definitely like to engage more with you and you know help you adopt not only sdg 2 for one but if you have questions related to other sdgs under FAO mandate don't hesitate to write to us we will put you in touch with the with the right team with an FAO one one thing which I would like to emphasize is actually the the action plan the two-pager or the one-pager it's really a key for us so please send us back your action plan and maybe we will highlight the deadline for submitting the action plan in our email to you today but it would be it would really help us understand as to where you stand in terms of the of sdg 2 for one so that we can we can help you in a in a more better and appropriate way so with this with these words thank you again and I would request all of you if possibly if you can turn on your webcam so that we can we can take this group photo which we of course we will share with you soon after as part of our email communication so thank you very much thank you thanks a lot thank you again so I'm making another picture now okay perfect okay thank you again everybody have a nice rest of your day have a nice evening bye bye thank you bye bye thank you thank you all thank you


This study examined the availability and accessibility of COVID-19 data in nine countries. It found that data was generally available for the entire population but was often broken down by age, gender, and region rather than ethnicity or socioeconomic status. Additionally, data was more readily available for certain populations such as students, healthcare and social workers, and those living in nursing homes, refugee camps, and prisons. The authors concluded that greater transparency and detail in reporting would allow for better understanding of the effects of health policies. This article was authored by Arianna Rochelow, Elias Kondelis, The Info, and others.