Indicator 2.4.1 Proportion of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agriculture

Indicator 2.4.1: Proportion of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agriculture

Target 2.4: By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production, that help maintain ecosystems, that strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding and other disasters and that progressively improve land and soil quality

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)

Definition:

The scope of indicator 2.4.1 is the agricultural farm holding, and more precisely the agricultural land area of the farm holding, i.e. land used primarily to grow crops and raise livestock. This choice of scope is fully consistent with the intended use of a country’s agricultural land area as the denominator of the aggregate indicator. Specifically, the following are:

Included within scope:

• Intensive and extensive crops and livestock production systems.
• Subsistence agriculture.
• State and common land when used exclusively and managed by the farm holding.
• Food and non-food crops and livestock products (e.g. tobacco, cotton, and sheep wool).
• Crops grown for fodder or for energy purposes.
• Agro-forestry (trees on the agriculture areas of the farm).
• Aquaculture, to the extent that it takes place within the agricultural land area. For example, rice-fish farming and similar systems.

Excluded from scope:

• State and common land not used exclusively by the farm holding.
• Nomadic pastoralism.
• Production from gardens and backyards. Production from hobby farms^[1].
• Holdings focusing exclusively on aquaculture.
• Holdings focusing exclusively on forestry.
• Food harvested from the wild.

Concepts:

The literature review (Hayati, 2017) identified a large number of potential sustainability themes across the three dimensions of sustainability and, for each theme, usually a large number of possible sub-indicators. The key considerations in the selection of themes are relevance and measurability. In terms of relevance, the relationship between the associated sub-indicator and sustainable agriculture outcomes at farm level should be strong. Following this approach, only sub-indicators that are responsive to farm level policies aimed at improving sustainable agriculture are considered. In terms of measurability, only a “core” set of themes and sub-indicators for which measurement and reporting is expected in the majority of countries are selected.

A key aspect of all approaches to measuring sustainable agriculture is the recognition that sustainability is a multi-dimensional concept, and that these multiple dimensions need to be reflected in the construction of the indicator. This implies that SDG indicator 2.4.1 must be based on a set of sub-indicators that cover these three dimensions.

Through a consultative process that has lasted over two years, 11 themes and sub-indicators have been identified, which make up SDG 2.4.1.

Please see the annex for a detailed description of the sub-indicators.

Percentage (%):

The member countries are required to report the proportion (percentage) of agriculture land area for all 11 sub-indicators separately by sustainability status. Aggregation at the national level is performed for each sub-indicator independently, by adding up the agricultural land area of each agriculture holding (selected through a nationally representative sample) and finally reporting the resulting national total as a percentage of the total nationally representative agriculture land area for the 11 sub-indicators in a dashboard.

Different data are collected through different instruments. Often, environmental data are collected through environmental monitoring systems, including remote sensing. Yet many countries do not have the capacity or resources to do so, and therefore these data are sparse or non-existent. In order to propose a manageable and cost-effective solution, a requirement stressed by several countries during the consultations, the methodology offers a single data collection instrument for all sub-indicators: the farm survey.

Several countries have suggested using existing data sources or alternative data sources on the grounds that these instruments can be more cost-effective and sometimes provide more reliable results than farm surveys. These instruments include remote sensing, GIS, models, agricultural surveys, household surveys, administrative data or environmental monitoring systems. The methodology considers the possibility to use such instruments, subject to a series of criteria to ensure data quality and international comparability. Other data sources may also be used to complement and/or validate farm survey results.

The methodology note also recommends that countries complement the farm survey with a monitoring systems that can measure the impact of agriculture on the environment (soil, water, fertilizer and pesticide pollution, biodiversity, etc.) and on health (pesticides residues in food and human bodies). This will provide additional information and help crosscheck the robustness of SDG indicator 2.4.1 with regard to the environmental dimension of sustainability.

National Statistical Offices or designated offices within countries will be responsible for collecting data for this indicator.

During the consultations undertaken, several countries highlighted the difficulties in combining data from different sources and requested that this be avoided to the extent possible. Other, relatively data rich, countries, instead, insisted on the need to allow for the use of existing data sources. The updated methodology addresses both concerns: it offers the farm survey as a single data collection instrument for all sub-indicators, but it also offers the possibility of using a combination of different data sources as an alternative option as long as certain criteria are satisfied.

The decision to use the farm survey as a data collection instrument for this indicator is in line with countries’ efforts, supported by FAO, to develop farm surveys as the most appropriate tool for generating agricultural statistics. It also benefits from the FAO work in developing the Agricultural Integrated Survey (AGRIS) programme, which is implemented as part of a new initiative called 50 X 2030.

The decision to focus on farm survey has implications on the type of information that it is possible to capture in order to cover the different dimensions of sustainability. While farm surveys are well suited to measure the economic dimension of sustainability, they may not be the ideal tool for measuring environmental and social sustainability in terms of impact/outcomes.

Typically, environmental impacts of agriculture are measured through monitoring systems like remote sensing, soil and water sampling, or other tools associated with a specific area, rather than with a single agricultural holding. For several environmental themes, it is unlikely that farmers would be able to assess the environmental impact of their farming practices on issues like fertilizer pollution or pesticide impact. Using a farm survey instrument, instead of environmental monitoring systems, therefore implies moving from measuring outcome/impact to assessing farmers’ practices. Whenever possible, however, the revised methodology continues to focus on measuring outcomes.

Similarly, the sub-themes under the social dimension are usually best captured through household surveys. While in the majority of cases agricultural holdings are closely associated with a given household, this is not always the case, and therefore capturing the social dimension of sustainability through a farm survey, especially if it is not designed to cover social aspects could pose certain challenges.

The indicator is defined by the formula:

$SDG2.4.1=\frac{Area\mathrm{\ }under\mathrm{\ }productive\mathrm{\ }and\mathrm{\ }sustainable\mathrm{\ }agriculture\mathrm{\ }}{Agricultural\mathrm{\ }land\mathrm{\ }area}$

This implies the need to measure both the extent of land under productive and sustainable agriculture (the numerator), as well as the extent of agriculture land area (the denominator).

• The numerator captures the three dimensions of sustainable production: environmental, economic and social. It corresponds to agricultural land area of the farms that satisfy the sustainability criteria of the 11 sub-indicators selected across all three dimensions.
• The denominator in turn the sum of agricultural land area (as defined by FAO) 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.

Steps to calculate SDG 2.4.1 include:

1. Determining the scope of the indicator: The scope of Indicator 2.4.1 is the agricultural farm holding, and more precisely the agricultural land area of the farm holding, i.e., land used primarily to grow crops and raise livestock. Forestry, fisheries and aquaculture activities may be included to the extent that they are secondary activities conducted on the agricultural area of the farm holding, for example rice-fish farming and similar systems.
2. Determining the dimensions to be covered: Indicator 2.4.1 includes environmental, economic and social dimensions in the sustainability assessment.
3. Choosing the scale for the sustainability assessment: Indicator 2.4.1 is farm level with aggregation to higher levels.
4. Selecting the data collection instrument(s): It is recommended that indicator 2.4.1 be collected through a farm survey.
5. Selecting the themes within each dimension, and choosing a sub-indicator for each theme: The sub-indicators should satisfy a number of criteria (described in annex 1 for each sub-indicator, respectively).
6. Assessing sustainability performance at farm level for each sub-indicator: Specific sustainability criteria are applied in order to assess the sustainability level of the farm for each theme according to the respective sub-indicators.
7. Deciding the periodicity of monitoring the indicator: It is recommended to be collected at least every three years.
8. Modality of reporting the indicator: The set of sub-indicators are presented in the form of a dashboard. The dashboard approach offers a response in terms of measuring sustainability at farm level and aggregating it at national level.

The 2.4.1 methodology proposes reporting of indicator 2.4.1 through a national-level dashboard, presenting the different sub-indicators together but independently. The dashboard approach offers several advantages, including the possibility of combining data from different sources and identification of critical sustainability issues, facilitating the search for a balance between the three sustainability dimensions. As a result, countries can easily visualize their performance in terms of the different sustainability dimensions and themes, and understand where policy efforts can be focused for future improvements.

Computation of results and construction of the dashboard are performed for each sub-indicator separately using the ‘traffic light’ approach already defined for each sub-indicator: aggregation at national level is performed for each sub-indicator independently, by summing the agricultural land area of each agricultural holdings by sustainability category (red, yellow or green), and reporting the resulting national total as percentage of the total national agricultural land area of all agricultural farm holdings in the country. In practice, the reported value of Indicator 2.4.1 is determined by the results of most-limiting sub-indicator in terms of sustainability performance.

2024-07-29

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)

Direct links to:

2.1.2 Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population, based on the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES)

5.a.1 (a) Percentage of people with ownership or secure rights over agricultural land (out of total agricultural population), by sex; and (b) share of women among owners or rights-bearers of agricultural land, by type of tenure

Indirect link to:

Indicator 2.3.2: Average income of small-scale food producers, by sex and indigenous status

3