1. Indicator

(a) Name: Use of agricultural pesticides.
(b) Brief Definition: Use of pesticides per unit of agricultural land area.
(c) Unit of Measurement: Pesticide use in metric tons of active ingredients per 10 km2 of agricultural land.

2. Placement in the Framework

(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 14: Promoting Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development.
(b) Type of Indicator: Driving Force.

3. Significance (Policy Relevance)

(a) Purpose: This indicator measures the use of pesticides in agriculture.

(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: The challenge for agriculture is to increase food production in a sustainable way. One important aspect of this challenge is the use of agricultural pesticides which add persistent organic chemicals to ecosystems. Pesticides can be persistent, mobile, and toxic in soil, water, and air; and can have impact on humans and wildlife through the food chain. They tend to accumulate in the soil and in biota, and residues may reach surface and groundwater through leaching. Humans can be exposed to pesticides through food. Exaggerated use may result from government subsidies and/or failure of pesticide users to internalize health-related costs. The indicator is related to other agricultural intensification practices.

(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator is closely linked to others in the agricultural area, such as fertilizer use. Use of pesticides can have wide implications for the environment, and is linked to the indicators listed under toxic chemicals and biodiversity.

(d) Targets: Not available.

(e) International Conventions and Agreements: Some agricultural pesticides are banned by international trade agreements.

4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions

(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The concepts are available, however, because of the limitations discussed below in section 4d, it should only be regarded as an interim indicator. More work is required to develop a more suitable pesticide indicator pertinent to sustainable development.

(b) Measurement Methods: Data on pesticide use are usually derived from sales or "domestic disappearance" and expressed as active ingredients. Agricultural area data are widely available. Interpretation will benefit from information on types of active ingredients in use, seasonal doses, rate of application, and variability on use for different crops and regions.

(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: This indicator relates to the application of pesticides to the environment. It has implications to biodiversity and human health. It is, therefore, a Driving Force indicator in the DSR Framework.

(d) Limitations of the Indicator: This indicator provides an aggregation, which ignores toxicity, mobility, and level of persistence; and spatial and application variances. It does not consider the use of pesticides outside of agriculture, which can be significant in developed countries. Data omissions and errors often occur during the transfer of the primary data to statistical authorities.

(e) Alternative Definitions: To meet some of the limitations expressed above in section 4d, an indicator could be developed which would recognize the classification of pesticide into classes, ranging from less harmful to highly toxic. Such a pesticide index would show if pesticide use is becoming more sustainable or not. The interpretation value of this indicator would benefit from its application to crop types or agro-ecological zones. However, data availability does not support this more many areas.

5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National Sources

(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Pesticide sales data; agricultural land area.

(b) Data Availability: The land area data are readily available for most countries. However, pesticide supply-use data in metric tons are only available from international sources for selected countries and limited to the major types of pesticide. Some pesticide data are available for about 50-60 countries. The data are not regularly collected and reported, and not usually available on a sub-national basis.

(c) Data Sources: Some data are available on total national pesticide use from the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Eurostat maintains a data base of their members' data. Landell Mills Market Research Ltd. (Bath, UK) also has data.

6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator

(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency is the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). The contact point is the Assistant Director-General, Sustainable Development Department, FAO; fax no. (39 6) 5225 3152.

(b) Other Organizations: OECD, the European Economic Community, and Landell Mills Marker Research Ltd. have been involved in the development of this indicator.

7. Further Information

Not available.

 

USE OF FERTILIZERS
Environmental	Chapter 14	Driving Force

1. Indicator

(a) Name: Use of fertilizers.
(b) Brief Definition: Extent of fertilizer use in agriculture per unit of agricultural land area.
(c) Unit of Measurement: Metric tons of fertilizer nutrients per 10 km2 of agricultural land.

2. Placement in the Framework

(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 14: Promoting Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development.
(b) Type of Indicator: Driving Force.

3. Significance (Policy Relevance)

(a) Purpose: The purpose of this indicator is to measure the intensity of fertilizer use.

(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: The challenge for agriculture is to increase food production in a sustainable way. This indicator shows the potential environmental pressure from agricultural activities. Extensive fertilizer use is linked to eutrophication of water bodies, soil acidification, and potential of contamination of water supply with nitrates. The actual environmental effects will depend on pollution abatement practices, soil and plant types, and meteorological conditions.

(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator is closely linked to others in the agricultural, water, and atmospheric groups, such as pesticide use, biochemical demand in water bodies, algae index, and emissions of greenhouse gases.

(d) Targets: Targets should be based on national situations.

(e) International Conventions and Agreements: Not available.

4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions

(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The concepts are available. Data on the quantities of fertilizers used are converted into the three basic nutrient components and aggregated. The three components are Nitrogen (N), phosphorous (P205), and potassium (K20). Factors for chemical breakdown are standardized. Data on agricultural land refer to arable and permanent crop land. However, due to the limitations discussed in section 4d below, this indicator should be regarded as interim for sustainable development purposes.

(b) Measurement Methods: Data on fertilizers are compiled from industry sources and non-traditional sources. Data for developing countries generally refer to domestic disappearance based on imported products. The derived figures in terms of nutrients are then divided by the agricultural land area.

(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: This indicator pertains to the application of fertilizers to agricultural land. It has implications to soils, water, and the atmosphere; and thereby represents a Driving Force indicator within the DSR Framework.

(d) Limitations of the Indicator: Environmental impacts caused by leaching and volatilization of fertilizer nutrients depend not only on the quantity applied, but also on the condition of the agro-ecosystem, cropping patterns, and on farm management practices. In addition, this indicator does not include organic fertilizer from manure and crop residues, or the application of fertilizers to grasslands. Reliability of fertilizer data is questionable. The indicator assumes even distribution of fertilizer on the land.

(e) Alternative Definitions: A more relevant and sophisticated indicator would focus on the nutrient balance to reflect both inputs and outputs associated with all agricultural practices. This would address the critical issue of surplus or deficiency of nutrients in the soil. This would need to be based on agro-ecological zones.

5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National Sources

(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Data on fertilizer use for N, P205, and K20; and agricultural area.

(b) Data Availability: Data for all countries exist at the national level only. The data are updated on a regular basis.

(c) Data Sources: At the international level, the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) is the primary source.

6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator

(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency is the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). The contact point is the Assistant director-General, Sustainable Development Department, FAO; fax no. (39 6) 5225 3152.

(b) Other Organizations: The International Fertilizer Association is associated with the development of this indicator..

7. Further Information

Not available.

 

IRRIGATION PERCENT OF ARABLE LAND
Environmental	Chapter 14	Driving Force

1. Indicator

(a) Name: Irrigation percent of arable land.
(b) Brief Definition: Land area under irrigation as a percentage of total arable land area.
(c) Unit of Measurement: %.

2. Placement in the Framework

(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 14: Promoting Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development.
(b) Type of Indicator: Driving Force.

3. Significance (Policy Relevance)

(a) Purpose: The purpose is to show the degree of importance of irrigation within the country's agricultural sector, from the point of view of water and land resource utilization.

(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: This indicator shows to what extent arable land and water resources are already used in an intensive manner. It can indicate level of conversion of land to high input agriculture. Availability of irrigation water is linked to other intensification processes with potentially negative effects on sustainability, such as monoculture, selection of high yielding varieties in detriment to genetic diversity, runoff and soil erosion, compaction, and salinization. Extensive standing water area is linked to incidence of water borne disease. Sustainability assessment of changes in the indicator is linked to water availability and soil suitability for irrigation.

(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: The indicator is closely linked to others pertaining to agriculture and water, such as area affected by salinity and waterlogging, annual withdrawals of water, groundwater reserves, and land use change.

(d) Targets: The indicator can lend itself to the establishment of national targets. It relates to targets for global, regional and national food security.

(e) International Conventions and Agreements: The following agreements are relevant to this indicator: Mar del Plata 1977, Dublin ICDE 1992, and international water sharing agreements between neighbouring countries.

4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions

(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: Arable land is officially defined as "land under temporary crops, temporary meadows for mowing or pasture, land under market and kitchen gardens, and land temporarily fallow." That definition tends to equate arable land with cultivated land. The Food and Agricultural Organization's (FAO) definition of cultivated land is that under temporary (annual) crops, but some countries may include perennial crops in cultivated land. Therefore, complications may arise from cross-country comparisons.

The way multiple cropping and intercropping are accounted for is not standardized and not always clear. Irrigation potential is determined on assumptions that vary from country to country. It should be based on annual/seasonal water and land resource availability (depending on topography, infiltration). As land and water resources not always coincide, technological options (that is., basin transfers, storage) should be judged by economic and environmental considerations. Except in a few cases, no consideration is given to the possible double counting of shared water resources. Mangrove, wetland and flood plains (resources with high environmental value) are usually, but not systematically included in the irrigation potential. The concept of "water managed areas" includes "irrigated areas" (that is., equipped with hydraulic structures) as well as cultivated wetland and valley bottoms without irrigation equipment.

(b) Measurement Methods: Irrigated area (area equipped with hydraulic structures) divided by arable land as defined above in section 4a.

(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: Intensive agriculture due to either high population pressure or commercial factors acts as a Driving Force within the DSR Framework.

(d) Limitations of the Indicator: There are conceptual and methodological difficulties of interpretation. Some national data use a narrow definition while other data may be broadly defined. Some countries report areas with irrigation facilities, while others use areas provided with water. The indicator value does not capture the quality or conditions of both land and water resources. Knowledge of other factors such as crops grown, agro-ecological zone type, and distribution of farm size would be relevant to its interpretation. Other aspects of irrigation, including equity, efficiency, and importance to the overall national agricultural production are not reflected in the indicator. The indicator does not provide a measure of lands with irrigation potential.

(e) Alternative Definitions: The definition could be broadened to include less formal irrigation. FAO AQUASTAT reports on "irrigated area as a percentage of cultivated area." As discussed in section 4a above, the use of "cultivated area" instead of "arable land" can avoid interpretation problems. At the sub-national level, irrigated area as a percent of irrigable area can be a better indicator of both development potential and sustainable development.

5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National Sources

(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Data on irrigated land and arable land. Supplementary data on drained area, the area equipped with sub-surface or open drains, and the residual area, can be useful for the interpretation of sustainability.

(b) Data Availability: The data are available for some countries.

(c) Data Sources: Recent data are available at the country level in FAO's AQUASTAT (1994/1995) which is directly based on official national data. At present AQUASTAT covers Africa but will eventually cover the Middle East, Asia and Latin America). Data are also available from national sources in some countries only. The data are estimated by countries at various periods and are then interpolated. Data from 1970s are available as part of country statistics in WAICENT.

6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator

The lead agency is the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The contact point is the Assistant Director-General, Sustainability Department, FAO; fax no. (39 6) 5225 3152.

7. Further Information

FAO. Irrigation in Africa in Figures. FAO Water Reports 7 (in preparation).

ENERGY USE IN AGRICULTURE
Environmental	Chapter 14	Driving Force

1. Indicator

(a) Name: Energy use in agriculture.
(b) Brief Definition: The energy utilized in agriculture on a yearly basis expressed as a ratio of energy inputs and agricultural production as well as in absolute terms.
(c) Unit of Measurement: Joules per tons of agricultural products.

2. Placement in the Framework

(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 14: Promoting Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development.
(b) Type of Indicator: Driving Force.

3. Significance (Policy Relevance)

(a) Purpose: The purpose of the indicator is to provide a measure of energy intensity in agriculture.

(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: Energy is essential for most human activities, including agriculture. Too little energy makes it difficult to realize decent productivity and meet food requirements. Too much energy signifies waste, global warming, and other stress on the environment. The indicator can guide policies and investments regarding (i) energy requirements in all stages of agricultural production in order to measure agricultural productivity and, (ii) energy efficiency, to reduce energy intensity. The indicator is relevant to promote an increase in agricultural production with a parallel increase in energy efficiency.

(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: The indicator is closely related to the energy indicators under consumption and production patterns. It is also linked to environmental indicators such as land condition change and emissions of greenhouse gases.

(d) Targets: No international targets exist or apply. At the national level targets could be developed, depending on the country's range of agricultural products.

(e) International Conventions and Agreements: No binding agreements exist. Agenda 21 makes reference to the need to promote energy efficiency.

4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions

(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: Total energy consumption in agriculture derives from the energy inputs in all the stages of agricultural production and processing, that is land preparation, mechanization, fertilization, irrigation, harvesting, transport, processing, and storage. Each of these stages use different forms of energy (mechanical, electrical, thermal) which can be aggregated in equivalent units. Total agricultural production is an established concept and needs no further elaboration.

(b) Measurement Methods: Annual energy inputs for each stage in agricultural production and processing are determined and converted into equivalent units such as terajoules (TJ)) and aggregated as total energy. Annual agricultural production figures are collected for all products. The obtained values are then compared for the same year, and can be tracked over time to see how changes in both terms affect their ratio.

(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: This indicator is a Driving Force in the DSR Framework. It can guide a response especially if normative targets for increase of agricultural production or energy intensity are established.

(d) Limitations of the Indicator: Agricultural production is affected by factors other than energy inputs (for example, climate, availability of other inputs). These factors are less distorting if comparative values are collected for consecutive years. Data for energy use in agriculture at the present time are not considered to be very reliable. Special surveys could generate sound data, but would be expensive, and may not be a priority for statistical agencies.

(e) Alternative Definitions: The indicator could be expanded to include non-commercial energy inputs, such as human and animal power. Human power quantification methodologies might need to be further elaborated. The relevance of this alternative to sustainable development is questionable.

5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National Sources

(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Data is needed on energy inputs for different agricultural activities and on agricultural production.

(b) Data Availability: Some data is available for most countries, although reliable and comprehensive statistics to enable time-series analysis are elusive.

(c) Data Sources: Energy balances are prepared by energy ministries or other competent national authorities. Agricultural production figures are available from agriculture ministries. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has processed and compiled considerable data in both energy and production at the international level.

6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator

(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency is the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). The contact point is the Assistant Director-General, Sustainable Development Department, FAO; fax no. (39 6) 5225 3152.

(b) Other Organizations: The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), The World Bank, and UN Regional Commissions could be involved in further development of this indicator.

7. Further Information

FAO and African Development Bank. Future Energy Requirements for Africa's Agriculture. 1995.

FAO. State of Food and Agriculture. 1995.

World Energy Council Developing Country Committee Publications (1993-1996).

 

ARABLE LAND PER CAPITA
Environmental	Chapter 14	State

1. Indicator

(a) Name: Arable land per capita.
(b) Brief Definition: Arable land area, that is land allocated to perennial crop production, in a country expressed on a per capita basis.
(c) Unit of Measurement: ha.

2. Placement in the Framework

(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 14: Promoting Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development.
(b) Type of Indicator: State.

3. Significance (Policy Relevance)

(a) Purpose: This indicator shows the amount of crop land area available for food production. To be useful, it must be available as a time series.

(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: The capacity of agriculture and technology to satisfy the increasing demands for food is uncertain. The world's population is rapidly rising putting in question society's food security capability. In addition, other uses, for example urban, are putting increasing pressure on available agricultural land. Changes in indicator value over time may show increased/decreased pressure on land resources. This indicator is of value to land planning decision making.

(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: The indicator is primarily linked to other measures related to the land resource, such as agricultural land affected by salinization and waterlogging, forest area, and area of urban settlements. It is a sub-component of the land use change indicator. It is also linked to population indicators, such as population growth rate, population density, etc.

(d) Targets: Not available.

(e) International Conventions and Agreements: Not available.

4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions

(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The concepts of arable land as defined in the agricultural censuses at the national level is clear. Arable land is officially defined as "land under temporary crops, temporary meadows for mowing or pasture, land under market and kitchen gardens, and land temporarily fallow."

(b) Measurement Methods: The indicator is calculated as a ratio of arable land area to total population.

(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: In portraying the per capita availability of arable land, this indicator is a State measure in the DSR Framework.

(d) Limitations of the Indicator: This indicator does not reveal anything about increased productivity of agricultural land, or of the spatial variation in land quality. This may be a more important factor than the amount of arable land. Area under permanent crops is not included in the concept of arable land.

(e) Alternative Definitions: Agricultural land per capita could be used as a more inclusive definition of land available for food production.

5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National Sources

(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Arable land and population figures. Interpretation for sustainable development would benefit from data related to yields or production per capita.

(b) Data Availability: National data for arable land has been derived, for the most part, from estimates, some of questionable quality. Remote sensing is improving the data quality.

(c) Data Sources: The primary data sources include: the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the Population Division of the United Nations Department of Economics and Social Information and Policy Analysis (DESIPA), and national statistical centres.

6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator

The lead agency is FAO. The contact point is the Assistant Director-General, Sustainable Development Department, FAO; fax no. (39 6) 5225 3152.

7. Further Information

Not available.

 

AREA AFFECTED BY SALINIZATION AND WATERLOGGING
Environmental	Chapter 14	State

1. Indicator

(a) Name: Area affected by salinization and waterlogging.
(b) Brief Definition: Total area affected in hectares compared to the total land area.
(c) Unit of Measurement: ha. and %.

2. Placement in the Framework

(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 14: Promoting Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development.
(b) Type of Indicator: State.

3. Significance (Policy Relevance)

(a) Purpose: The purpose of the indicator is to show the degree of loss of productive land and decreasing production from non-sustainable water management, especially irrigation and drainage practices. It could also indicate the potential for reclamation of natural areas affected by waterlogging or salinity.

(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: This indicator is highly significant to determine degradation of land resources. It is related to intensification processes with potentially negative effects on sustainability, such as multi-cropping, and runoff problems, etc. Extensive standing water area is linked to incidence of water-borne disease. The indicator reveals the extent of unsustainable water management practices leading to reductions of productive land and production losses. The indicator could reflect two extreme cases in agriculture: low efficiency due to over irrigation; and high efficiency, as when scarce water resources are reused due to scarcity of water resources.

(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: The indicator is most closely linked with other land and water measures, such as irrigated portion of arable land, dryland degradation, land condition change, and water withdrawals. Response indicators, such as agricultural education and extension, provide evidence of preventive action to counter land degradation.

(d) Targets: Not available.

(e) International Conventions and Agreements: The following agreements are relevant to this indicator: Mar del Plata 1977; the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) 1992; and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification.

4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions

(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The concepts are available and shown on soil resources maps from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)/United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (see 1990 Legend).

(b) Measurement Methods: The indicator is computed as the land that is lost to salinization and waterlogging such that it cannot be cultivated. The data is directly derived from official national sources.

(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: The extent of degraded land results from driving forces related to unsustainable irrigation development. This result provides a State measure within the DSR Framework.

(d) Limitations of the Indicator: The indicator is a crude measure of the land under severe conditions. Its value does not capture the conditions of man-caused or natural salinization/waterlogging. There are conceptual and methodological difficulties of interpretation. Other aspects of irrigation sustainability, impact on different crops and overall national agricultural production, are not reflected in the indicator. The cost of mitigative measures are not captured; neither is the degree of restriction for agricultural use. Salt-intrusion is also a concern for any irrigated agriculture activity in coastal areas.

(e) Alternative Definitions: It would be possible to report separately on salinity area only. The waterlogged area can be confused with naturally waterlogged wetlands. Reporting on the degree of severity would increase the interpretation sensitivity of this indicator, but data availability would be problematic.

5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National Sources

(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Land areas under different degrees of salinity and waterlogging conditions. Interpretation would be enhanced with data on water withdrawals as a percent of available water, amount of irrigated land, drained area, and drought frequency.

(b) Data Availability: Quality data are not available. Global assessments of annual losses of land area to salinization and waterlogging are available from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

(c) Data Sources: Data are available at the country level in the Food and Agricultural Organization's (FAO) AQUASTAT database (1994/1995) for Africa. This database will eventually cover Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. Other sources include the World Map of the Status of Soil Degradation by the International Soil Reference and Information Centre (ISRIC); and a World Soils and Terrain Digital Database (SOTER).

6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator

The lead organization is the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). The contact point is the Assistant Director-General, Sustainable Development department, FAO; fax no. (39 6) 5225 3152.

7. Further Information

(a) Further Readings:

FAO. Irrigation in Africa in Figures. FAO Water Reports 7 (in preparation).

International Soil Reference and Information Centre (ISRIC), ISSS, FAO, UNEP. Procedures Manual. Global and National Soil and Terrain Digital Databases.

(b) Other References:

FAO. International Action Programme on Water and Sustainable Agricultural Development. 1990.

In 1987 UNEP formulated a proposal for a Global Assessment of the Status of Human-induced Soil Degradation (GLASOD).

The SOTER concept endorsed by ISSS in 1986.

 

AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION
Environmental	Chapter 14	Response

1. Indicator

(a) Name: Agricultural education.
(b) Brief Definition: Public expenditure on agricultural education (both secondary and post-secondary schools that teach agriculture) reflecting national investment in human capital for sustainable agricultural and rural development (SARD).
(c) Unit of Measurement: % of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

2. Placement in the Framework

(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 14: Promoting Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development.
(b) Type of Indicator: Response.

3. Significance (Policy Relevance)

(a) Purpose: The purpose of this indicator is to measure public sector investment in human resource development for SARD.

(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: The challenge for agriculture is to respond to meet the future food needs of an expanding population. This must be accomplished in a sustainable way by protecting the land and associated resources. Investment in human capital through agricultural education represents an effective avenue to enhance food production and protect the natural resource base.

(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator is linked to other socioeconomic, environmental, and institutional measures, such as GDP spent on education, adult literacy rate, land condition change, and access to information.

(d) Targets: Both the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the World Bank have established international targets for investing in education.

(e) International Conventions and Agreements: Not available.

4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions

(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The definitions and concepts associated with this indicator are well known and readily available. The concept is based on the use of national and international data that use investment in education as a percentage of GDP; for example, UNESCO at the international level, and Ministries of Education or Agriculture at the country level.

(b) Measurement Methods: The indicator is calculated from current public expenditure on agricultural education as a percentage of GDP measured in US$.

(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: The indicator reflects a country's commitment to agricultural education over time. As such, it is a Response measure within the DSR Framework.

(d) Limitations of the Indicator: The indicator does not reflect the quality of the education provided. It is assumed that there is a relationship between the level of investment and the quality of educational services.

(e) Alternative Definitions: An indicator for agricultural education expenditure could be expressed as: (i) a percentage of GDP (or Gross National Product); (ii) agricultural education expenditure as a percentage of the total expenditure on education; or (iii) as a percentage of total government expenditure.

5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National Sources

(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Data on public expenditure on agricultural education and GDP are required.

(b) Data Availability: The data are generally available in most countries or through international sources such as UNESCO and the World Bank.

(c) Data Sources: National data sources include ministries of education or agriculture; while the primary international sources are UNESCO and the World Bank.

6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator

(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency for the development of this indicator is the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The contact point is the Assistant Director General, Sustainable Development Department, FAO; fax no. (39-6) 5225 3152.

(b) Other Organizations: Other organizations involved in the development of this indicator include UNESCO, the World Bank, and national ministries of education and agriculture.

7. Further Information

Not available.