| Agricultural real factor income per annual work unit (AWU) |
Farmers' income |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Agricultural real factor income per annual work unit (AWU) |
Farmers' income |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Agricultural real factor income per annual work unit (AWU) |
Farmers' income |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
Provides solid evidence of outcomes, limited ability to monitor systemic food system transition |
| Agricultural real factor income per annual work unit (AWU) |
Farmers' income |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Widely used by policymakers EU institutions. Easy to interpret: €/AWU = income per worker |
| Agricultural real factor income per annual work unit (AWU) |
Farmers' income |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Based on Eurostat standards, harmonized methodologies (Economic Accounts for Agriculture), high comparability across countries, strong international credibility |
| Agricultural real factor income per annual work unit (AWU) |
Farmers' income |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Based on official economic accounting systems, validated statistical methodologies, widely used in scientific literature and institutional reports |
| Agricultural real factor income per annual work unit (AWU) |
Farmers' income |
data availability |
Strong |
2024 |
| Agricultural real factor income per annual work unit (AWU) |
Farmers' income |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Public and free access (EU datasets) |
| Agricultural real factor income per annual work unit (AWU) |
Farmers' income |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Can be integrated with economic indicators, productivity metrics, sustainability indicators. Available in standard formats (CSV, APIs) |
| Agricultural real factor income per annual work unit (AWU) |
Farmers' income |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 |
| Agricultural real factor income per annual work unit (AWU) |
Farmers' income |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Index of the real income of factors in agriculture per annual work unit (Indicator A) |
Farmers' income |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Index of the real income of factors in agriculture per annual work unit (Indicator A) |
Farmers' income |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Index of the real income of factors in agriculture per annual work unit (Indicator A) |
Farmers' income |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Highly effective for monitoring transition, captures temporal trends, highlights improvements or downturns |
| Index of the real income of factors in agriculture per annual work unit (Indicator A) |
Farmers' income |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly relevant for policymakers, economic analysis, useful for assessing policy impacts over time, easily communicable |
| Index of the real income of factors in agriculture per annual work unit (Indicator A) |
Farmers' income |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Based on Eurostat standards, harmonized methodology, high comparability across countries and over time, index structure enhances temporal comparison |
| Index of the real income of factors in agriculture per annual work unit (Indicator A) |
Farmers' income |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Derived from official economic accounts, established and validated methodology, widely used in academic and institutional analyses |
| Index of the real income of factors in agriculture per annual work unit (Indicator A) |
Farmers' income |
data availability |
Strong |
2024 |
| Index of the real income of factors in agriculture per annual work unit (Indicator A) |
Farmers' income |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible data, easy to download and use, regular updates |
| Index of the real income of factors in agriculture per annual work unit (Indicator A) |
Farmers' income |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Can be integrated with macroeconomic indicators, productivity indicators, agricultural price data, based on standard statistical format |
| Index of the real income of factors in agriculture per annual work unit (Indicator A) |
Farmers' income |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 |
| Index of the real income of factors in agriculture per annual work unit (Indicator A) |
Farmers' income |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Index of real net agricultural entrepreneurial income, per unpaid annual work unit (Indicator B) |
Farmers' income |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Index of real net agricultural entrepreneurial income, per unpaid annual work unit (Indicator B) |
Farmers' income |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Index of real net agricultural entrepreneurial income, per unpaid annual work unit (Indicator B) |
Farmers' income |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Captures dynamic changes over time (index-based) |
| Index of real net agricultural entrepreneurial income, per unpaid annual work unit (Indicator B) |
Farmers' income |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly relevant for policymakers (CAP, rural development), agricultural economists, supports decisions on, farm support policies, income stabilization measures, index format is intuitive and policy-relevant |
| Index of real net agricultural entrepreneurial income, per unpaid annual work unit (Indicator B) |
Farmers' income |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Based on Eurostat methodologies, derived from Economic Accounts for Agriculture, harmonized definitions ensure comparability across countries, strong alignment with international statistical standards |
| Index of real net agricultural entrepreneurial income, per unpaid annual work unit (Indicator B) |
Farmers' income |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Based on officially validated accounting frameworks, robust statistical methodologies |
| Index of real net agricultural entrepreneurial income, per unpaid annual work unit (Indicator B) |
Farmers' income |
data availability |
Strong |
2024 |
| Index of real net agricultural entrepreneurial income, per unpaid annual work unit (Indicator B) |
Farmers' income |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible data, easy to download and use, regular updates |
| Index of real net agricultural entrepreneurial income, per unpaid annual work unit (Indicator B) |
Farmers' income |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Can be linked to cost indicators, productivity indicators, farm structure data |
| Index of real net agricultural entrepreneurial income, per unpaid annual work unit (Indicator B) |
Farmers' income |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 |
| Index of real net agricultural entrepreneurial income, per unpaid annual work unit (Indicator B) |
Farmers' income |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Net entrepreneurial income of agriculture (Indicator C) |
Farmers' income |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Net entrepreneurial income of agriculture (Indicator C) |
Farmers' income |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Net entrepreneurial income of agriculture (Indicator C) |
Farmers' income |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
Captures overall economic outcomes |
| Net entrepreneurial income of agriculture (Indicator C) |
Farmers' income |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly relevant for policymakers, macroeconomic planning, supports agricultural policy evaluation, sectoral performance analysis, easy to communicate, aggregate income indicator |
| Net entrepreneurial income of agriculture (Indicator C) |
Farmers' income |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Based on Eurostat Economic Accounts for Agriculture, harmonized methodology, high comparability across countries, widely used in international statistics |
| Net entrepreneurial income of agriculture (Indicator C) |
Farmers' income |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Derived from official accounting frameworks, methodologically robust, widely validated in scientific and institutional context |
| Net entrepreneurial income of agriculture (Indicator C) |
Farmers' income |
data availability |
Strong |
2024 |
| Net entrepreneurial income of agriculture (Indicator C) |
Farmers' income |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly available, easy to access and download, regularly updated |
| Net entrepreneurial income of agriculture (Indicator C) |
Farmers' income |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Can be integrated with GDP, productivity indicators, agricultural output data |
| Net entrepreneurial income of agriculture (Indicator C) |
Farmers' income |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 |
| Net entrepreneurial income of agriculture (Indicator C) |
Farmers' income |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of net farm income |
Employment and working conditions |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of net farm income |
Employment and working conditions |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of net farm income |
Employment and working conditions |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
|
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of net farm income |
Employment and working conditions |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
|
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of net farm income |
Employment and working conditions |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Adequate |
|
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of net farm income |
Employment and working conditions |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
|
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of net farm income |
Employment and working conditions |
data availability |
Weak |
|
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of net farm income |
Employment and working conditions |
data accessibility |
Adequate |
|
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of net farm income |
Employment and working conditions |
data interoperability |
Strong |
|
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of net farm income |
Employment and working conditions |
broad geographical coverage |
Weak |
|
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of net farm income |
Employment and working conditions |
timeliness |
Weak |
|
| Farmers' income compared to wages in the rest of the economy |
Farmers' income |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Farmers' income compared to wages in the rest of the economy |
Farmers' income |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Farmers' income compared to wages in the rest of the economy |
Farmers' income |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Captures structural inequality between sectors. Highly relevant for monitoring just and inclusive transition |
| Farmers' income compared to wages in the rest of the economy |
Farmers' income |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly relevant for policymaker labour and agricultural policy design, supports decisions on, income support, wage parity policies, rural development, easily communicable:, ratio-based indicator intuitive for broad audiences |
| Farmers' income compared to wages in the rest of the economy |
Farmers' income |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Based on agricultural income statistics (e.g. Eurostat), wage statistics (labour accounts). Comparability depends on: consistency between datasets. Generally strong in EU context |
| Farmers' income compared to wages in the rest of the economy |
Farmers' income |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Based on well-established economic indicators, labour and income statistics. Widely used in policy analysis, economic research |
| Farmers' income compared to wages in the rest of the economy |
Farmers' income |
data availability |
Strong |
2023 |
| Farmers' income compared to wages in the rest of the economy |
Farmers' income |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly available datasets, Easy to access and combine, regular updates |
| Farmers' income compared to wages in the rest of the economy |
Farmers' income |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Combines agricultural accounts, labour market data, high interoperability across economic datasets, reusable for multiple analyses |
| Farmers' income compared to wages in the rest of the economy |
Farmers' income |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 |
| Farmers' income compared to wages in the rest of the economy |
Farmers' income |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Government support to agricultural research and development |
Competitiveness |
integration on food system framework |
|
|
| Government support to agricultural research and development |
Competitiveness |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Government support to agricultural research and development |
Competitiveness |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Captures structural inequality between agriculture and other sectors. Clear interpretation (higher ratio = improved parity). Strong for monitoring just and inclusive transition |
| Government support to agricultural research and development |
Competitiveness |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly relevant for policymakers. Supports decisions on income support, labour policies, and rural development. Easily communicable as a ratio indicator |
| Government support to agricultural research and development |
Competitiveness |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Based on agricultural and labour statistics (e.g. Eurostat). Strong in EU context, but depends on harmonization between datasets |
| Government support to agricultural research and development |
Competitiveness |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Based on established economic and labour indicators. Widely used in policy and academic analysis |
| Government support to agricultural research and development |
Competitiveness |
data availability |
Strong |
2023 (2024 for a few countries) |
| Government support to agricultural research and development |
Competitiveness |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible, easy to retrieve, and regularly updated |
| Government support to agricultural research and development |
Competitiveness |
data interoperability |
Strong |
High interoperability across economic datasets. Can be combined with labour and agricultural indicator |
| Government support to agricultural research and development |
Competitiveness |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 |
| Government support to agricultural research and development |
Competitiveness |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Real GDP per capita |
Competitiveness |
integration on food system framework |
|
|
| Real GDP per capita |
Competitiveness |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Real GDP per capita |
Competitiveness |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
Captures overall economic growth trends but does not reflect food system transition directly. Lacks specificity on sustainability, equity, or food-related outcome |
| Real GDP per capita |
Competitiveness |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly relevant for macroeconomic policymaking. Easy to interpret and widely used. However, limited usefulness for targeted food system decisions |
| Real GDP per capita |
Competitiveness |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Based on internationally harmonized standards (e.g. World Bank, OECD). Highly comparable across countries and time |
| Real GDP per capita |
Competitiveness |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
One of the most established and validated economic indicators. Based on robust national accounting systems and widely used in researc |
| Real GDP per capita |
Competitiveness |
data availability |
Strong |
2024 |
| Real GDP per capita |
Competitiveness |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible, downloadable, and regularly updated |
| Real GDP per capita |
Competitiveness |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Highly interoperable with economic, social, and environmental datasets. Standard formats and widespread use |
| Real GDP per capita |
Competitiveness |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 |
| Real GDP per capita |
Competitiveness |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Balance of trade |
Competitiveness |
integration on food system framework |
|
|
| Balance of trade |
Competitiveness |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Balance of trade |
Competitiveness |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
Reflects trade performance and competitiveness but does not directly capture sustainability or transition outcomes. Interpretation depends on context (surplus ≠ sustainability |
| Balance of trade |
Competitiveness |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly relevant for policymakers, especially in trade, agriculture, and economic policy. Supports decisions on imports/exports, competitiveness, and food security strategies |
| Balance of trade |
Competitiveness |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Based on internationally harmonized trade statistics (e.g. World Trade Organization, Eurostat). Highly comparable across countries |
| Balance of trade |
Competitiveness |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Based on well-established national accounts and trade statistics methodologies. Widely validated and used in economic research |
| Balance of trade |
Competitiveness |
data availability |
Strong |
2025 |
| Balance of trade |
Competitiveness |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets with clear documentation and regular updates |
| Balance of trade |
Competitiveness |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Highly interoperable with economic, trade, and sectoral datasets. Standard classifications (e.g. HS codes) support integration |
| Balance of trade |
Competitiveness |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 |
| Balance of trade |
Competitiveness |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Agriculture value added share of GDP |
Competitiveness |
integration on food system framework |
|
|
| Agriculture value added share of GDP |
Competitiveness |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Agriculture value added share of GDP |
Competitiveness |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
Indicates structural economic change (e.g. declining share in developed economies), but does not directly capture sustainability or transition outcomes. Interpretation depends on context (high share ≠ sustainable system) |
| Agriculture value added share of GDP |
Competitiveness |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly relevant for policymakers to understand the role of agriculture in the economy. Supports structural and development policies. Easy to interpret |
| Agriculture value added share of GDP |
Competitiveness |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Based on internationally harmonized national accounts (e.g. World Bank, OECD). Highly comparable across countries and time |
| Agriculture value added share of GDP |
Competitiveness |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Derived from national accounting systems with strong methodological foundations. Widely used in research and policy analysis |
| Agriculture value added share of GDP |
Competitiveness |
data availability |
Strong |
2022 |
| Agriculture value added share of GDP |
Competitiveness |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible, regularly updated, and easy to download |
| Agriculture value added share of GDP |
Competitiveness |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Fully interoperable with macroeconomic datasets (GDP, employment, productivity). Standard formats and classifications |
| Agriculture value added share of GDP |
Competitiveness |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
26 |
| Agriculture value added share of GDP |
Competitiveness |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Agriculture orientation index (AOI) for government expenditures |
Competitiveness |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Agriculture orientation index (AOI) for government expenditures |
Competitiveness |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Agriculture orientation index (AOI) for government expenditures |
Competitiveness |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Provides insight into policy commitment and resource allocation, which are key drivers of transition |
| Agriculture orientation index (AOI) for government expenditures |
Competitiveness |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly relevant for policymakers. Supports evaluation of public investment strategies, agricultural prioritization, and policy coherence. Easy to interpret (ratio/index) |
| Agriculture orientation index (AOI) for government expenditures |
Competitiveness |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Based on internationally standardized methodology (FAO, UN SDG framework). Enables cross-country comparison |
| Agriculture orientation index (AOI) for government expenditures |
Competitiveness |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Developed within the SDG monitoring framework with strong methodological grounding and institutional validation |
| Agriculture orientation index (AOI) for government expenditures |
Competitiveness |
data availability |
Strong |
2022 |
| Agriculture orientation index (AOI) for government expenditures |
Competitiveness |
data accessibility |
Adequate |
Generally accessible, but may depend on national reporting systems and data completeness |
| Agriculture orientation index (AOI) for government expenditures |
Competitiveness |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Can be linked to other indicators (e.g. agricultural GDP, productivity, policy indicators). Uses standardized formats |
| Agriculture orientation index (AOI) for government expenditures |
Competitiveness |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
26 |
| Agriculture orientation index (AOI) for government expenditures |
Competitiveness |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Research and development expenditure |
Competitiveness |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Research and development expenditure |
Competitiveness |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Research and development expenditure |
Competitiveness |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
Captures inputs to innovation, not outcomes. Indicates potential for transition but does not directly measure sustainability improvements |
| Research and development expenditure |
Competitiveness |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly relevant for policymakers and strategic planning. Supports decisions on innovation policy, funding allocation, and long-term transformation strategies |
| Research and development expenditure |
Competitiveness |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Based on internationally harmonized methodologies (e.g. OECD Frascati Manual, Eurostat). Highly comparable across countrie |
| Research and development expenditure |
Competitiveness |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Well-established indicator with strong methodological foundations and extensive use in academic and policy analysis |
| Research and development expenditure |
Competitiveness |
data availability |
Strong |
2021 |
| Research and development expenditure |
Competitiveness |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible, well-documented, and regularly updated |
| Research and development expenditure |
Competitiveness |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Highly interoperable with economic, innovation, and sectoral datasets. Standard classifications and formats |
| Research and development expenditure |
Competitiveness |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 |
| Research and development expenditure |
Competitiveness |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Labour productivity in the agricultural/beverages/fishing and aquaculture/food sector |
Competitiveness |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Labour productivity in the agricultural/beverages/fishing and aquaculture/food sector |
Competitiveness |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Labour productivity in the agricultural/beverages/fishing and aquaculture/food sector |
Competitiveness |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Captures improvements in efficiency and structural transformation |
| Labour productivity in the agricultural/beverages/fishing and aquaculture/food sector |
Competitiveness |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly relevant for policymakers and industry. Supports decisions on competitiveness, innovation, labour policies, and sector development. Easy to interpret (output per worker) |
| Labour productivity in the agricultural/beverages/fishing and aquaculture/food sector |
Competitiveness |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Based on internationally harmonized economic statistics (e.g. OECD, Eurostat). High comparability across countries and sectors |
| Labour productivity in the agricultural/beverages/fishing and aquaculture/food sector |
Competitiveness |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Well-established economic indicator grounded in national accounts and productivity analysis. Widely used in research and policy |
| Labour productivity in the agricultural/beverages/fishing and aquaculture/food sector |
Competitiveness |
data availability |
Strong |
2021 |
| Labour productivity in the agricultural/beverages/fishing and aquaculture/food sector |
Competitiveness |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible, well-documented, and regularly updated |
| Labour productivity in the agricultural/beverages/fishing and aquaculture/food sector |
Competitiveness |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Highly interoperable with GDP, employment, and sectoral indicators. Standard formats facilitate integration |
| Labour productivity in the agricultural/beverages/fishing and aquaculture/food sector |
Competitiveness |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 |
| Labour productivity in the agricultural/beverages/fishing and aquaculture/food sector |
Competitiveness |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| (Gross) value added along the food chain (by sector; Agriculture, Fishing and Aquaculture, Food and Beverage selectable) |
Competitiveness |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| (Gross) value added along the food chain (by sector; Agriculture, Fishing and Aquaculture, Food and Beverage selectable) |
Competitiveness |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| (Gross) value added along the food chain (by sector; Agriculture, Fishing and Aquaculture, Food and Beverage selectable) |
Competitiveness |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Captures structural changes in value distribution across sectors (e.g. upstream vs downstream). |
| (Gross) value added along the food chain (by sector; Agriculture, Fishing and Aquaculture, Food and Beverage selectable) |
Competitiveness |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly relevant for policymakers and industry. Supports decisions on value chain development, industrial policy, and competitiveness. Useful for identifying imbalances across sectors |
| (Gross) value added along the food chain (by sector; Agriculture, Fishing and Aquaculture, Food and Beverage selectable) |
Competitiveness |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Based on national accounts and sectoral statistics (e.g. Eurostat, OECD). Harmonized classifications (NACE/ISIC) ensure comparability |
| (Gross) value added along the food chain (by sector; Agriculture, Fishing and Aquaculture, Food and Beverage selectable) |
Competitiveness |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Derived from well-established economic accounting systems. Widely validated and used in research and policy analysis |
| (Gross) value added along the food chain (by sector; Agriculture, Fishing and Aquaculture, Food and Beverage selectable) |
Competitiveness |
data availability |
Strong |
2021 |
| (Gross) value added along the food chain (by sector; Agriculture, Fishing and Aquaculture, Food and Beverage selectable) |
Competitiveness |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible, well documented, and regularly updated |
| (Gross) value added along the food chain (by sector; Agriculture, Fishing and Aquaculture, Food and Beverage selectable) |
Competitiveness |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Highly interoperable with GDP, employment, productivity, and sectoral indicators. Standard sector classifications facilitate integration |
| (Gross) value added along the food chain (by sector; Agriculture, Fishing and Aquaculture, Food and Beverage selectable) |
Competitiveness |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 |
| (Gross) value added along the food chain (by sector; Agriculture, Fishing and Aquaculture, Food and Beverage selectable) |
Competitiveness |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Products under EU quality schemes (per scheme: PDO, PGI, TSG, GI) |
Competitiveness |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Products under EU quality schemes (per scheme: PDO, PGI, TSG, GI) |
Competitiveness |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Products under EU quality schemes (per scheme: PDO, PGI, TSG, GI) |
Competitiveness |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Indicates uptake of quality schemes and sustainable/value-added practices |
| Products under EU quality schemes (per scheme: PDO, PGI, TSG, GI) |
Competitiveness |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly relevant for policymakers and regional development strategies. Supports decisions on quality policy, rural development, and market differentiation. Easy to communicate (number of certified products) |
| Products under EU quality schemes (per scheme: PDO, PGI, TSG, GI) |
Competitiveness |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Based on harmonized EU regulatory framework for quality schemes (PDO, PGI, TSG, GI). Fully standardized definitions ensure comparability across EU countries |
| Products under EU quality schemes (per scheme: PDO, PGI, TSG, GI) |
Competitiveness |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Based on legally defined certification schemes with strict criteria and verification processes. Strong institutional validation |
| Products under EU quality schemes (per scheme: PDO, PGI, TSG, GI) |
Competitiveness |
data availability |
Strong |
2022 |
| Products under EU quality schemes (per scheme: PDO, PGI, TSG, GI) |
Competitiveness |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible and easy to retrieve. Clear documentation and classification by scheme |
| Products under EU quality schemes (per scheme: PDO, PGI, TSG, GI) |
Competitiveness |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Can be linked to regional, economic, and trade data. Standard classification of schemes facilitates integration |
| Products under EU quality schemes (per scheme: PDO, PGI, TSG, GI) |
Competitiveness |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 |
| Products under EU quality schemes (per scheme: PDO, PGI, TSG, GI) |
Competitiveness |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Adjusted gross disposable income of households per capita |
Food affordability |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Adjusted gross disposable income of households per capita |
Food affordability |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Adjusted gross disposable income of households per capita |
Food affordability |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
Captures trends in household income and welfare, but does not directly measure food system transition |
| Adjusted gross disposable income of households per capita |
Food affordability |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly relevant for policymakers (social, economic, and welfare policies). Supports decisions on affordability, inequality, and living standards. Easily interpretable (income per capita |
| Adjusted gross disposable income of households per capita |
Food affordability |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Based on internationally harmonized national accounts (e.g. OECD, Eurostat). Highly comparable across countries |
| Adjusted gross disposable income of households per capita |
Food affordability |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Derived from established statistical frameworks and validated methodologies. Widely used in economic and social analysis |
| Adjusted gross disposable income of households per capita |
Food affordability |
data availability |
Strong |
2023 |
| Adjusted gross disposable income of households per capita |
Food affordability |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible, well documented, and regularly updated |
| Adjusted gross disposable income of households per capita |
Food affordability |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Highly interoperable with economic, social, and inequality indicators. Standard formats and classifications |
| Adjusted gross disposable income of households per capita |
Food affordability |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
26 |
| Adjusted gross disposable income of households per capita |
Food affordability |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Consumer Prices, Food Indices (2015 = 100) |
Food affordability |
integration on food system framework |
|
|
| Consumer Prices, Food Indices (2015 = 100) |
Food affordability |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Consumer Prices, Food Indices (2015 = 100) |
Food affordability |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Captures price trends over time, essential for monitoring food system stability, affordability, and shocks (e.g. inflation, crises). Clear interpretation (index increase = higher prices) |
| Consumer Prices, Food Indices (2015 = 100) |
Food affordability |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly relevant for policymakers (inflation, food security, social policy). Supports decisions on subsidies, market regulation, and consumer protection. Easily interpretable index |
| Consumer Prices, Food Indices (2015 = 100) |
Food affordability |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Based on internationally harmonized CPI methodologies (e.g. OECD, Eurostat). High comparability across countries and time |
| Consumer Prices, Food Indices (2015 = 100) |
Food affordability |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Established statistical indicator with strong methodological foundation. Widely used in economic and policy analysis |
| Consumer Prices, Food Indices (2015 = 100) |
Food affordability |
data availability |
Strong |
2024 |
| Consumer Prices, Food Indices (2015 = 100) |
Food affordability |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible, frequently updated, and well documented |
| Consumer Prices, Food Indices (2015 = 100) |
Food affordability |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Highly interoperable with economic, income, and consumption indicators. Standard index format |
| Consumer Prices, Food Indices (2015 = 100) |
Food affordability |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 |
| Consumer Prices, Food Indices (2015 = 100) |
Food affordability |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Food price inflation |
Food affordability |
integration on food system framework |
|
|
| Food price inflation |
Food affordability |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Food price inflation |
Food affordability |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Captures dynamic changes in food prices over time, essential for monitoring shocks, inflationary pressures, and system instability. Clear interpretation (higher inflation = reduced affordability) |
| Food price inflation |
Food affordability |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly relevant for policymakers (inflation control, food security, social protection). Supports timely decisions on subsidies, market interventions, and crisis response |
| Food price inflation |
Food affordability |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Based on standardized CPI and inflation methodologies (e.g. OECD, Eurostat). Comparable across countries and over time |
| Food price inflation |
Food affordability |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Based on well-established statistical methods. Widely used in economic analysis and policy monitoring |
| Food price inflation |
Food affordability |
data availability |
Strong |
2024 |
| Food price inflation |
Food affordability |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible, frequently updated, and well documented |
| Food price inflation |
Food affordability |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Highly interoperable with income, poverty, and consumption indicators. Standard statistical formats |
| Food price inflation |
Food affordability |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 |
| Food price inflation |
Food affordability |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Cost of a healthy diet (CoHD), PPP dollar per person per day |
Food affordability |
integration on food system framework |
|
|
| Cost of a healthy diet (CoHD), PPP dollar per person per day |
Food affordability |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Cost of a healthy diet (CoHD), PPP dollar per person per day |
Food affordability |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Directly measures affordability of healthy diets, a key outcome of food system transition. Clear interpretation (higher cost = lower affordability). Strong evidence of outcomes, especially when combined with income data |
| Cost of a healthy diet (CoHD), PPP dollar per person per day |
Food affordability |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly relevant for policymakers (nutrition, food security, social protection). Supports decisions on subsidies, taxation, and food policy interventions. Communicable and policy-relevant metric |
| Cost of a healthy diet (CoHD), PPP dollar per person per day |
Food affordability |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Adequate |
Based on internationally recognized methodologies (e.g. FAO, World Bank), using PPP adjustments. Comparability is strong but depends on data quality and diet definitions across countries |
| Cost of a healthy diet (CoHD), PPP dollar per person per day |
Food affordability |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Based on scientifically validated nutritional requirements and cost modeling. Widely used in global food security and nutrition research. |
| Cost of a healthy diet (CoHD), PPP dollar per person per day |
Food affordability |
data availability |
Strong |
2022 |
| Cost of a healthy diet (CoHD), PPP dollar per person per day |
Food affordability |
data accessibility |
Adequate |
Generally accessible, but may require aggregation from multiple datasets. Not always as easily accessible as macroeconomic indicators |
| Cost of a healthy diet (CoHD), PPP dollar per person per day |
Food affordability |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
Can be linked to income, poverty, nutrition, and food price indicators. Strong integration potential within food system frameworks |
| Cost of a healthy diet (CoHD), PPP dollar per person per day |
Food affordability |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 |
| Cost of a healthy diet (CoHD), PPP dollar per person per day |
Food affordability |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Prevalence of unaffordability (PUA) |
Food affordability |
integration on food system framework |
|
|
| Prevalence of unaffordability (PUA) |
Food affordability |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Prevalence of unaffordability (PUA) |
Food affordability |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Directly measures outcomes of food system performance in terms of affordability and inclusion. Clear interpretation (higher prevalence = worse access). Strong for monitoring inclusive transition. |
| Prevalence of unaffordability (PUA) |
Food affordability |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly relevant for policymakers (food security, social protection, nutrition policy). Supports targeting of vulnerable populations and policy interventions. Easily communicable (percentage of population) |
| Prevalence of unaffordability (PUA) |
Food affordability |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Adequate |
Based on FAO/World Bank methodologies combining income and diet cost data. Comparability is generally strong but depends on harmonization of underlying datasets |
| Prevalence of unaffordability (PUA) |
Food affordability |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Based on established methodologies integrating income distribution and diet cost analysis. Widely used in global food security assessments |
| Prevalence of unaffordability (PUA) |
Food affordability |
data availability |
Strong |
2022 |
| Prevalence of unaffordability (PUA) |
Food affordability |
data accessibility |
Adequate |
Generally accessible, but may require combining multiple datasets (income + diet cost) |
| Prevalence of unaffordability (PUA) |
Food affordability |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Highly interoperable with indicators such as CoHD, poverty rates, and income distributio |
| Prevalence of unaffordability (PUA) |
Food affordability |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 |
| Prevalence of unaffordability (PUA) |
Food affordability |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Number of people unable to afford a healthy diet (NUA) |
Food affordability |
integration on food system framework |
|
|
| Number of people unable to afford a healthy diet (NUA) |
Food affordability |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Number of people unable to afford a healthy diet (NUA) |
Food affordability |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Captures real outcomes of the food system, showing how many people are excluded from healthy diets. Clear interpretation (higher number = worse situation). Strong for monitoring inclusive transition |
| Number of people unable to afford a healthy diet (NUA) |
Food affordability |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly relevant for policymakers (food security, social protection, humanitarian action). Supports targeting and prioritization of interventions. Very communicable and impactful metric |
| Number of people unable to afford a healthy diet (NUA) |
Food affordability |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Adequate |
Based on FAO/World Bank methodologies. Comparable across countries, but depends on consistency of underlying income and diet cost data |
| Number of people unable to afford a healthy diet (NUA) |
Food affordability |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Based on validated methodologies combining diet cost and income distribution data. Widely used in global food security analysis |
| Number of people unable to afford a healthy diet (NUA) |
Food affordability |
data availability |
Strong |
2022 |
| Number of people unable to afford a healthy diet (NUA) |
Food affordability |
data accessibility |
Adequate |
Generally accessible, though sometimes requires accessing aggregated datasets or reports |
| Number of people unable to afford a healthy diet (NUA) |
Food affordability |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
Highly interoperable with PUA, CoHD, poverty, and income indicators |
| Number of people unable to afford a healthy diet (NUA) |
Food affordability |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 |
| Number of people unable to afford a healthy diet (NUA) |
Food affordability |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Indicator of Food Price Anomalies (IFPA), by Food CPI |
Food affordability |
integration on food system framework |
|
|
| Indicator of Food Price Anomalies (IFPA), by Food CPI |
Food affordability |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Indicator of Food Price Anomalies (IFPA), by Food CPI |
Food affordability |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Specifically designed to detect price anomalies and shocks. Provides early warning signals of instability in the food system. Clear interpretation (anomalies = disruptions) |
| Indicator of Food Price Anomalies (IFPA), by Food CPI |
Food affordability |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly relevant for policymakers and international organizations. Supports rapid response to crises, market interventions, and food security strategies |
| Indicator of Food Price Anomalies (IFPA), by Food CPI |
Food affordability |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Based on FAO methodology using standardized CPI data. Ensures comparability across countries and time |
| Indicator of Food Price Anomalies (IFPA), by Food CPI |
Food affordability |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Developed within FAO frameworks with robust statistical methods for anomaly detection. Widely used in global monitoring systems |
| Indicator of Food Price Anomalies (IFPA), by Food CPI |
Food affordability |
data availability |
Strong |
2023 |
| Indicator of Food Price Anomalies (IFPA), by Food CPI |
Food affordability |
data accessibility |
Adequate |
Generally accessible, though sometimes requires integration of CPI datasets |
| Indicator of Food Price Anomalies (IFPA), by Food CPI |
Food affordability |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Highly interoperable with CPI, inflation, food security, and market indicators |
| Indicator of Food Price Anomalies (IFPA), by Food CPI |
Food affordability |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
26 |
| Indicator of Food Price Anomalies (IFPA), by Food CPI |
Food affordability |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Inflation, consumer prices (annual %) |
Food affordability |
integration on food system framework |
|
|
| Inflation, consumer prices (annual %) |
Food affordability |
goal alignment |
Adequate |
|
| Inflation, consumer prices (annual %) |
Food affordability |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
Captures overall inflation trends, but does not isolate food system dynamics. Less informative than food-specific indicators for monitoring transition |
| Inflation, consumer prices (annual %) |
Food affordability |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly relevant for macroeconomic policy (monetary, fiscal). Supports decisions on inflation control and economic stability. Easy to interpret |
| Inflation, consumer prices (annual %) |
Food affordability |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Based on standardized CPI methodologies (e.g. World Bank, OECD). Highly comparable across countries and time |
| Inflation, consumer prices (annual %) |
Food affordability |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Well-established indicator with strong statistical foundations and extensive validation |
| Inflation, consumer prices (annual %) |
Food affordability |
data availability |
Strong |
2023-2024 |
| Inflation, consumer prices (annual %) |
Food affordability |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible, well documented, and regularly updated |
| Inflation, consumer prices (annual %) |
Food affordability |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Highly interoperable with economic, income, and price indicators |
| Inflation, consumer prices (annual %) |
Food affordability |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 |
| Inflation, consumer prices (annual %) |
Food affordability |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Adjusted net national income per capita (constant 2015 US$) |
Food affordability |
integration on food system framework |
|
|
| Adjusted net national income per capita (constant 2015 US$) |
Food affordability |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Adjusted net national income per capita (constant 2015 US$) |
Food affordability |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
Captures long-term economic welfare trends but does not directly reflect food system transition or sustainability outcomes |
| Adjusted net national income per capita (constant 2015 US$) |
Food affordability |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly relevant for macroeconomic and development policy. Supports decisions on welfare, income distribution, and economic growth. Easy to interpret |
| Adjusted net national income per capita (constant 2015 US$) |
Food affordability |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Based on internationally harmonized national accounts (e.g. World Bank, OECD). Highly comparable across countries and time |
| Adjusted net national income per capita (constant 2015 US$) |
Food affordability |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Derived from established accounting frameworks with strong methodological foundations. Widely validated in economic research |
| Adjusted net national income per capita (constant 2015 US$) |
Food affordability |
data availability |
Adequate |
2015-2021, depending on country |
| Adjusted net national income per capita (constant 2015 US$) |
Food affordability |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible, well documented, and regularly updated |
| Adjusted net national income per capita (constant 2015 US$) |
Food affordability |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Highly interoperable with economic, social, and welfare indicators. Standard formats |
| Adjusted net national income per capita (constant 2015 US$) |
Food affordability |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
Missing in Malta |
| Adjusted net national income per capita (constant 2015 US$) |
Food affordability |
timeliness |
Weak |
|
| Change of consumer food prices |
Food affordability |
integration on food system framework |
|
|
| Change of consumer food prices |
Food affordability |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Change of consumer food prices |
Food affordability |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Captures dynamic changes in food prices over time, essential for monitoring trends, volatility, and shocks. Clear interpretation (increase = reduced affordability) |
| Change of consumer food prices |
Food affordability |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly relevant for policymakers (inflation control, food security, social protection). Supports timely decisions and market interventions. Easily communicable |
| Change of consumer food prices |
Food affordability |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Based on standardized CPI/food CPI methodologies (e.g. Eurostat, OECD). Highly comparable across countries and time |
| Change of consumer food prices |
Food affordability |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Established statistical indicator derived from official price data. Widely validated and used in research and policy |
| Change of consumer food prices |
Food affordability |
data availability |
Strong |
2025 |
| Change of consumer food prices |
Food affordability |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible, frequently updated, and well documented |
| Change of consumer food prices |
Food affordability |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Highly interoperable with inflation, income, and consumption indicators |
| Change of consumer food prices |
Food affordability |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 |
| Change of consumer food prices |
Food affordability |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Price indices of the means of agricultural production, input |
Food affordability |
integration on food system framework |
|
|
| Price indices of the means of agricultural production, input |
Food affordability |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Price indices of the means of agricultural production, input |
Food affordability |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Captures input cost trends and shocks (e.g. fertilizers, energy), which are critical for understanding economic sustainability and vulnerability of farming systems. Clear interpretation (increase = higher production costs |
| Price indices of the means of agricultural production, input |
Food affordability |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly relevant for policymakers and farmers. Supports decisions on subsidies, input regulation, and crisis response. Important for monitoring cost pressure |
| Price indices of the means of agricultural production, input |
Food affordability |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Based on standardized agricultural price index methodologies (e.g. Eurostat). Comparable across countries and time |
| Price indices of the means of agricultural production, input |
Food affordability |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Based on official statistical frameworks and validated methodologies. Widely used in agricultural economic |
| Price indices of the means of agricultural production, input |
Food affordability |
data availability |
Strong |
2023 |
| Price indices of the means of agricultural production, input |
Food affordability |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible, well documented, and regularly updated |
| Price indices of the means of agricultural production, input |
Food affordability |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Highly interoperable with output price indices, income indicators, and productivity indicators |
| Price indices of the means of agricultural production, input |
Food affordability |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 |
| Price indices of the means of agricultural production, input |
Food affordability |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Household final consumption expenditure by purpose: Share of food expenditure |
Food affordability |
integration on food system framework |
|
|
| Household final consumption expenditure by purpose: Share of food expenditure |
Food affordability |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Household final consumption expenditure by purpose: Share of food expenditure |
Food affordability |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Captures changes in food expenditure share over time, indicating affordability pressures and economic vulnerability. Clear interpretation (higher share = higher vulnerability) |
| Household final consumption expenditure by purpose: Share of food expenditure |
Food affordability |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly relevant for policymakers (social policy, food security, poverty). Supports decisions on subsidies, taxation, and income support. Easily interpretable and communicable |
| Household final consumption expenditure by purpose: Share of food expenditure |
Food affordability |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Based on standardized national accounts and household expenditure classifications (e.g. COICOP, Eurostat, OECD). Highly comparable across countries |
| Household final consumption expenditure by purpose: Share of food expenditure |
Food affordability |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Grounded in well-established economic theory (Engel's law) and widely used in research and policy analysis |
| Household final consumption expenditure by purpose: Share of food expenditure |
Food affordability |
data availability |
Strong |
2022-2023, depending on country |
| Household final consumption expenditure by purpose: Share of food expenditure |
Food affordability |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible, well documented, and regularly update |
| Household final consumption expenditure by purpose: Share of food expenditure |
Food affordability |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Highly interoperable with income, poverty, consumption, and price indicators |
| Household final consumption expenditure by purpose: Share of food expenditure |
Food affordability |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 |
| Household final consumption expenditure by purpose: Share of food expenditure |
Food affordability |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Affordability of a healthy diet: ratio of cost to food expenditures |
Food affordability |
integration on food system framework |
|
|
| Affordability of a healthy diet: ratio of cost to food expenditures |
Food affordability |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Affordability of a healthy diet: ratio of cost to food expenditures |
Food affordability |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Directly measures affordability pressure on households, capturing how difficult it is to achieve a healthy diet. Clear interpretation (higher ratio = lower affordability). Strong outcome-based indicator |
| Affordability of a healthy diet: ratio of cost to food expenditures |
Food affordability |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly relevant for policymakers (nutrition, social protection, food policy). Supports decisions on subsidies, taxation, and dietary interventions. Easy to communicate |
| Affordability of a healthy diet: ratio of cost to food expenditures |
Food affordability |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Adequate |
Based on standardized methodologies combining cost of diet and expenditure data (FAO, World Bank). Comparability depends on consistency of underlying datasets |
| Affordability of a healthy diet: ratio of cost to food expenditures |
Food affordability |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Based on validated methodologies combining economic and nutritional data. Widely used in food security and nutrition analysis |
| Affordability of a healthy diet: ratio of cost to food expenditures |
Food affordability |
data availability |
Strong |
2021 |
| Affordability of a healthy diet: ratio of cost to food expenditures |
Food affordability |
data accessibility |
Adequate |
Data generally accessible but may require integration of multiple sources and some processing |
| Affordability of a healthy diet: ratio of cost to food expenditures |
Food affordability |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Highly interoperable with income, expenditure, diet cost, and poverty indicators |
| Affordability of a healthy diet: ratio of cost to food expenditures |
Food affordability |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 |
| Affordability of a healthy diet: ratio of cost to food expenditures |
Food affordability |
timeliness |
Adequate |
|
| Self-sufficiency rate per member state (by food product) |
Economic resilience |
integration on food system framework |
|
|
| Self-sufficiency rate per member state (by food product) |
Economic resilience |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Self-sufficiency rate per member state (by food product) |
Economic resilience |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
Captures structural aspects of food system resilience and dependency on imports. However, high self-sufficiency does not necessarily imply sustainability |
| Self-sufficiency rate per member state (by food product) |
Economic resilience |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly relevant for policymakers (food security, trade policy, strategic autonomy). Supports decisions on production strategies and risk management |
| Self-sufficiency rate per member state (by food product) |
Economic resilience |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Adequate |
Based on standardized production and consumption statistics (e.g. Eurostat). Comparability is generally good but depends on data consistency across products and countries. |
| Self-sufficiency rate per member state (by food product) |
Economic resilience |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Based on established agricultural statistics and widely used in food security and trade analysis |
| Self-sufficiency rate per member state (by food product) |
Economic resilience |
data availability |
Strong |
2027 |
| Self-sufficiency rate per member state (by food product) |
Economic resilience |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible, well documented, and regularly updated |
| Self-sufficiency rate per member state (by food product) |
Economic resilience |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Highly interoperable with trade, production, and consumption indicators |
| Self-sufficiency rate per member state (by food product) |
Economic resilience |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 |
| Self-sufficiency rate per member state (by food product) |
Economic resilience |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Area at risk of severe soil erosion by water |
Conserv. of natural resources |
integration on food system framework |
Weak |
|
| Area at risk of severe soil erosion by water |
Conserv. of natural resources |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Area at risk of severe soil erosion by water |
Conserv. of natural resources |
transition monitoring |
Weak |
limited ability to contribute to food system transition |
| Area at risk of severe soil erosion by water |
Conserv. of natural resources |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking, communication, and public health strategies; easy to interpret |
| Area at risk of severe soil erosion by water |
Conserv. of natural resources |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat |
| Area at risk of severe soil erosion by water |
Conserv. of natural resources |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated; methodology coherent with FAO guidelines, UN convention to combact desertification, JRC soil erosion assessments |
| Area at risk of severe soil erosion by water |
Conserv. of natural resources |
data availability |
Adequate |
Widely available through UN SDG Global Database, FAOSTAT, Eurostat, and national surveys. Last year 2016 |
| Area at risk of severe soil erosion by water |
Conserv. of natural resources |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Area at risk of severe soil erosion by water |
Conserv. of natural resources |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Codified according to SDG standards and based on internationally harmonized definitions |
| Area at risk of severe soil erosion by water |
Conserv. of natural resources |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Area at risk of severe soil erosion by water |
Conserv. of natural resources |
timeliness |
Weak |
Data not updated frequently |
| Water exploitation index, plus (WEI+) |
Conserv. of natural resources |
integration on food system framework |
Weak |
|
| Water exploitation index, plus (WEI+) |
Conserv. of natural resources |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Water exploitation index, plus (WEI+) |
Conserv. of natural resources |
transition monitoring |
Weak |
limited ability to contribute to food system transition |
| Water exploitation index, plus (WEI+) |
Conserv. of natural resources |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking, communication, and public environmental strategies; easy to interpret |
| Water exploitation index, plus (WEI+) |
Conserv. of natural resources |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat, OECD |
| Water exploitation index, plus (WEI+) |
Conserv. of natural resources |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Water exploitation index, plus (WEI+) |
Conserv. of natural resources |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2022 |
| Water exploitation index, plus (WEI+) |
Conserv. of natural resources |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Water exploitation index, plus (WEI+) |
Conserv. of natural resources |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Water exploitation index, plus (WEI+) |
Conserv. of natural resources |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Water exploitation index, plus (WEI+) |
Conserv. of natural resources |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Final energy consumption by agriculture/forestry per hectare of utilised agricultural area |
Conserv. of natural resources |
integration on food system framework |
Weak |
|
| Final energy consumption by agriculture/forestry per hectare of utilised agricultural area |
Conserv. of natural resources |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Final energy consumption by agriculture/forestry per hectare of utilised agricultural area |
Conserv. of natural resources |
transition monitoring |
Weak |
limited ability to contribute to food system transition |
| Final energy consumption by agriculture/forestry per hectare of utilised agricultural area |
Conserv. of natural resources |
decision-usefulness |
Adequate |
useful for policymaking and public environmental strategies; difficult for non-technical people to interpret |
| Final energy consumption by agriculture/forestry per hectare of utilised agricultural area |
Conserv. of natural resources |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat, International Energy Agency, FAO, United Nations Statistics Division |
| Final energy consumption by agriculture/forestry per hectare of utilised agricultural area |
Conserv. of natural resources |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Final energy consumption by agriculture/forestry per hectare of utilised agricultural area |
Conserv. of natural resources |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2023 |
| Final energy consumption by agriculture/forestry per hectare of utilised agricultural area |
Conserv. of natural resources |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Final energy consumption by agriculture/forestry per hectare of utilised agricultural area |
Conserv. of natural resources |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators |
| Final energy consumption by agriculture/forestry per hectare of utilised agricultural area |
Conserv. of natural resources |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Final energy consumption by agriculture/forestry per hectare of utilised agricultural area |
Conserv. of natural resources |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Livestock density index |
Conserv. of natural resources |
integration on food system framework |
Weak |
|
| Livestock density index |
Conserv. of natural resources |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Livestock density index |
Conserv. of natural resources |
transition monitoring |
Weak |
limited ability to contribute to food system transition |
| Livestock density index |
Conserv. of natural resources |
decision-usefulness |
Adequate |
useful for policymaking, and public environmental strategies; easy to interpret, but other context indicators are needed to avoid ambiguity |
| Livestock density index |
Conserv. of natural resources |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat |
| Livestock density index |
Conserv. of natural resources |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Livestock density index |
Conserv. of natural resources |
data availability |
Adequate |
Last year 2020 |
| Livestock density index |
Conserv. of natural resources |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Livestock density index |
Conserv. of natural resources |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators |
| Livestock density index |
Conserv. of natural resources |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Livestock density index |
Conserv. of natural resources |
timeliness |
Weak |
data updated every 3-4 years |
| Estimated soil loss by water erosion by land cover type |
Conserv. of natural resources |
integration on food system framework |
Weak |
|
| Estimated soil loss by water erosion by land cover type |
Conserv. of natural resources |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Estimated soil loss by water erosion by land cover type |
Conserv. of natural resources |
transition monitoring |
Weak |
limited ability to contribute to food system transition |
| Estimated soil loss by water erosion by land cover type |
Conserv. of natural resources |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking, communication, and public environmental strategies; easy to interpret |
| Estimated soil loss by water erosion by land cover type |
Conserv. of natural resources |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat |
| Estimated soil loss by water erosion by land cover type |
Conserv. of natural resources |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Estimated soil loss by water erosion by land cover type |
Conserv. of natural resources |
data availability |
Adequate |
Last year 2016 |
| Estimated soil loss by water erosion by land cover type |
Conserv. of natural resources |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Estimated soil loss by water erosion by land cover type |
Conserv. of natural resources |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators |
| Estimated soil loss by water erosion by land cover type |
Conserv. of natural resources |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Estimated soil loss by water erosion by land cover type |
Conserv. of natural resources |
timeliness |
Weak |
irregular update |
| Share of landcover types affected by severe erosion |
Conserv. of natural resources |
integration on food system framework |
Weak |
|
| Share of landcover types affected by severe erosion |
Conserv. of natural resources |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Share of landcover types affected by severe erosion |
Conserv. of natural resources |
transition monitoring |
Weak |
limited ability to contribute to food system transition |
| Share of landcover types affected by severe erosion |
Conserv. of natural resources |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking, communication, and public environmental strategies; easy to interpret |
| Share of landcover types affected by severe erosion |
Conserv. of natural resources |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat |
| Share of landcover types affected by severe erosion |
Conserv. of natural resources |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Share of landcover types affected by severe erosion |
Conserv. of natural resources |
data availability |
Adequate |
Last year 2016 |
| Share of landcover types affected by severe erosion |
Conserv. of natural resources |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Share of landcover types affected by severe erosion |
Conserv. of natural resources |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators |
| Share of landcover types affected by severe erosion |
Conserv. of natural resources |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Share of landcover types affected by severe erosion |
Conserv. of natural resources |
timeliness |
Weak |
irregular update |
| Water use in the manufacturing industry by activity and supply category: Manufacture of food products and beverages |
Conserv. of natural resources |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Water use in the manufacturing industry by activity and supply category: Manufacture of food products and beverages |
Conserv. of natural resources |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Water use in the manufacturing industry by activity and supply category: Manufacture of food products and beverages |
Conserv. of natural resources |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
limited ability to contribute to food system transition |
| Water use in the manufacturing industry by activity and supply category: Manufacture of food products and beverages |
Conserv. of natural resources |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking, communication, and public environmental strategies; difficult for non-technical people to interpret |
| Water use in the manufacturing industry by activity and supply category: Manufacture of food products and beverages |
Conserv. of natural resources |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat |
| Water use in the manufacturing industry by activity and supply category: Manufacture of food products and beverages |
Conserv. of natural resources |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Water use in the manufacturing industry by activity and supply category: Manufacture of food products and beverages |
Conserv. of natural resources |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2022 |
| Water use in the manufacturing industry by activity and supply category: Manufacture of food products and beverages |
Conserv. of natural resources |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Water use in the manufacturing industry by activity and supply category: Manufacture of food products and beverages |
Conserv. of natural resources |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators |
| Water use in the manufacturing industry by activity and supply category: Manufacture of food products and beverages |
Conserv. of natural resources |
broad geographical coverage |
Weak |
8 Countries |
| Water use in the manufacturing industry by activity and supply category: Manufacture of food products and beverages |
Conserv. of natural resources |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Energy use in agriculture |
Conserv. of natural resources |
integration on food system framework |
Weak |
|
| Energy use in agriculture |
Conserv. of natural resources |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Energy use in agriculture |
Conserv. of natural resources |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
limited ability to contribute to food system transition |
| Energy use in agriculture |
Conserv. of natural resources |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking, communication, and public environmental strategies; difficult for non-technical people to interpret |
| Energy use in agriculture |
Conserv. of natural resources |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat, FAOSTAT |
| Energy use in agriculture |
Conserv. of natural resources |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Energy use in agriculture |
Conserv. of natural resources |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2022 |
| Energy use in agriculture |
Conserv. of natural resources |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Energy use in agriculture |
Conserv. of natural resources |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators |
| Energy use in agriculture |
Conserv. of natural resources |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Energy use in agriculture |
Conserv. of natural resources |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Plant genetic resources accessions stored ex situ |
Conserv. of natural resources |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Plant genetic resources accessions stored ex situ |
Conserv. of natural resources |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Plant genetic resources accessions stored ex situ |
Conserv. of natural resources |
transition monitoring |
Weak |
limited ability to contribute to food system transition |
| Plant genetic resources accessions stored ex situ |
Conserv. of natural resources |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking, communication, and public environmental strategies; easy to interpret |
| Plant genetic resources accessions stored ex situ |
Conserv. of natural resources |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat, FAOSTAT |
| Plant genetic resources accessions stored ex situ |
Conserv. of natural resources |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Plant genetic resources accessions stored ex situ |
Conserv. of natural resources |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2022 |
| Plant genetic resources accessions stored ex situ |
Conserv. of natural resources |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Plant genetic resources accessions stored ex situ |
Conserv. of natural resources |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators |
| Plant genetic resources accessions stored ex situ |
Conserv. of natural resources |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
26 Countries |
| Plant genetic resources accessions stored ex situ |
Conserv. of natural resources |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Number of local breeds for which sufficient genetic resources are stored for reconstitution |
Conserv. of natural resources |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Number of local breeds for which sufficient genetic resources are stored for reconstitution |
Conserv. of natural resources |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Number of local breeds for which sufficient genetic resources are stored for reconstitution |
Conserv. of natural resources |
transition monitoring |
Weak |
limited ability to contribute to food system transition |
| Number of local breeds for which sufficient genetic resources are stored for reconstitution |
Conserv. of natural resources |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking, communication, and public environmental strategies; easy to interpret |
| Number of local breeds for which sufficient genetic resources are stored for reconstitution |
Conserv. of natural resources |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat, FAOSTAT |
| Number of local breeds for which sufficient genetic resources are stored for reconstitution |
Conserv. of natural resources |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Number of local breeds for which sufficient genetic resources are stored for reconstitution |
Conserv. of natural resources |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2024 |
| Number of local breeds for which sufficient genetic resources are stored for reconstitution |
Conserv. of natural resources |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Number of local breeds for which sufficient genetic resources are stored for reconstitution |
Conserv. of natural resources |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators |
| Number of local breeds for which sufficient genetic resources are stored for reconstitution |
Conserv. of natural resources |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
24 Countries |
| Number of local breeds for which sufficient genetic resources are stored for reconstitution |
Conserv. of natural resources |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Annual freshwater withdrawals, agriculture (% of total freshwater withdrawal) |
Conserv. of natural resources |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Annual freshwater withdrawals, agriculture (% of total freshwater withdrawal) |
Conserv. of natural resources |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Annual freshwater withdrawals, agriculture (% of total freshwater withdrawal) |
Conserv. of natural resources |
transition monitoring |
Weak |
limited ability to contribute to food system transition |
| Annual freshwater withdrawals, agriculture (% of total freshwater withdrawal) |
Conserv. of natural resources |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking, communication, and public environmental strategies; easy to interpret |
| Annual freshwater withdrawals, agriculture (% of total freshwater withdrawal) |
Conserv. of natural resources |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard FAO (AQUASTAT) |
| Annual freshwater withdrawals, agriculture (% of total freshwater withdrawal) |
Conserv. of natural resources |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Annual freshwater withdrawals, agriculture (% of total freshwater withdrawal) |
Conserv. of natural resources |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2021 |
| Annual freshwater withdrawals, agriculture (% of total freshwater withdrawal) |
Conserv. of natural resources |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Annual freshwater withdrawals, agriculture (% of total freshwater withdrawal) |
Conserv. of natural resources |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators |
| Annual freshwater withdrawals, agriculture (% of total freshwater withdrawal) |
Conserv. of natural resources |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Annual freshwater withdrawals, agriculture (% of total freshwater withdrawal) |
Conserv. of natural resources |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Common farmland bird index |
Biodiversity conservation |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Common farmland bird index |
Biodiversity conservation |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Common farmland bird index |
Biodiversity conservation |
transition monitoring |
Weak |
limited ability to contribute to food system transition |
| Common farmland bird index |
Biodiversity conservation |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and environmental monitoring |
| Common farmland bird index |
Biodiversity conservation |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Adequate |
standard Eurostat, OECD |
| Common farmland bird index |
Biodiversity conservation |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated |
| Common farmland bird index |
Biodiversity conservation |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2021 or 2023 (depends on country) |
| Common farmland bird index |
Biodiversity conservation |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Common farmland bird index |
Biodiversity conservation |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
structured data but not explicitly designed for integration into a conceptual food system framework |
| Common farmland bird index |
Biodiversity conservation |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
22 Countries |
| Common farmland bird index |
Biodiversity conservation |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Investments related to biodiversity |
Biodiversity conservation |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Investments related to biodiversity |
Biodiversity conservation |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Investments related to biodiversity |
Biodiversity conservation |
transition monitoring |
Weak |
limited ability to contribute to food system transition |
| Investments related to biodiversity |
Biodiversity conservation |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking |
| Investments related to biodiversity |
Biodiversity conservation |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard UE |
| Investments related to biodiversity |
Biodiversity conservation |
scientific rigor and validation |
Adequate |
Strong indicator as a policy/statistical indicator, weaker as a scientific indicator. To be integrated with other scientific indicators. |
| Investments related to biodiversity |
Biodiversity conservation |
data availability |
Weak |
no data available yet |
| Investments related to biodiversity |
Biodiversity conservation |
data accessibility |
Weak |
undefinable |
| Investments related to biodiversity |
Biodiversity conservation |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
structured data in standardized statistical and administrative systems that can be easily integrated with other agricultural datasets and environmental indicators |
| Investments related to biodiversity |
Biodiversity conservation |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Investments related to biodiversity |
Biodiversity conservation |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Area under organic farming |
Organic farming |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Area under organic farming |
Organic farming |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Area under organic farming |
Organic farming |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
it does not fully evaluate the real effectiveness of the transition |
| Area under organic farming |
Organic farming |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Area under organic farming |
Organic farming |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat |
| Area under organic farming |
Organic farming |
scientific rigor and validation |
Adequate |
based on normative definitions and not on scientific models; supported by extensive scientific literature |
| Area under organic farming |
Organic farming |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2022 |
| Area under organic farming |
Organic farming |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Area under organic farming |
Organic farming |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Area under organic farming |
Organic farming |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
26 Countries |
| Area under organic farming |
Organic farming |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Organic crops by utilised agricultural area, economic size of the farm and NUTS 2 region |
Organic farming |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Organic crops by utilised agricultural area, economic size of the farm and NUTS 2 region |
Organic farming |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Organic crops by utilised agricultural area, economic size of the farm and NUTS 2 region |
Organic farming |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
capable of monitoring the real transition |
| Organic crops by utilised agricultural area, economic size of the farm and NUTS 2 region |
Organic farming |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Organic crops by utilised agricultural area, economic size of the farm and NUTS 2 region |
Organic farming |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat |
| Organic crops by utilised agricultural area, economic size of the farm and NUTS 2 region |
Organic farming |
scientific rigor and validation |
Adequate |
based on statistical definitions and not on scientific models; supported by extensive scientific literature |
| Organic crops by utilised agricultural area, economic size of the farm and NUTS 2 region |
Organic farming |
data availability |
Adequate |
Last year 2020 |
| Organic crops by utilised agricultural area, economic size of the farm and NUTS 2 region |
Organic farming |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Organic crops by utilised agricultural area, economic size of the farm and NUTS 2 region |
Organic farming |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Organic crops by utilised agricultural area, economic size of the farm and NUTS 2 region |
Organic farming |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Organic crops by utilised agricultural area, economic size of the farm and NUTS 2 region |
Organic farming |
timeliness |
Adequate |
every 3-4 years |
| Organic animal farming by utilised agricultural area, livestock unit, economic size of the farm and NUTS 2 region |
Organic farming |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Organic animal farming by utilised agricultural area, livestock unit, economic size of the farm and NUTS 2 region |
Organic farming |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Organic animal farming by utilised agricultural area, livestock unit, economic size of the farm and NUTS 2 region |
Organic farming |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
capable of monitoring the real transition |
| Organic animal farming by utilised agricultural area, livestock unit, economic size of the farm and NUTS 2 region |
Organic farming |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Organic animal farming by utilised agricultural area, livestock unit, economic size of the farm and NUTS 2 region |
Organic farming |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat |
| Organic animal farming by utilised agricultural area, livestock unit, economic size of the farm and NUTS 2 region |
Organic farming |
scientific rigor and validation |
Adequate |
based on statistical definitions and not on scientific models; supported by extensive scientific literature |
| Organic animal farming by utilised agricultural area, livestock unit, economic size of the farm and NUTS 2 region |
Organic farming |
data availability |
Adequate |
Last year 2020 |
| Organic animal farming by utilised agricultural area, livestock unit, economic size of the farm and NUTS 2 region |
Organic farming |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Organic animal farming by utilised agricultural area, livestock unit, economic size of the farm and NUTS 2 region |
Organic farming |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Organic animal farming by utilised agricultural area, livestock unit, economic size of the farm and NUTS 2 region |
Organic farming |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
26 Countries |
| Organic animal farming by utilised agricultural area, livestock unit, economic size of the farm and NUTS 2 region |
Organic farming |
timeliness |
Adequate |
every 3-4 years |
| Organic operators (by status of the registration process) |
Organic farming |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Organic operators (by status of the registration process) |
Organic farming |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Organic operators (by status of the registration process) |
Organic farming |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
it does not fully evaluate the real effectiveness of the transition |
| Organic operators (by status of the registration process) |
Organic farming |
decision-usefulness |
Adequate |
useful for monitoring and communication; easy to interpret |
| Organic operators (by status of the registration process) |
Organic farming |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat |
| Organic operators (by status of the registration process) |
Organic farming |
scientific rigor and validation |
Adequate |
based on statistical definitions and not on scientific models; supported by extensive scientific literature |
| Organic operators (by status of the registration process) |
Organic farming |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2022-2023 |
| Organic operators (by status of the registration process) |
Organic farming |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Organic operators (by status of the registration process) |
Organic farming |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Organic operators (by status of the registration process) |
Organic farming |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Organic operators (by status of the registration process) |
Organic farming |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Organic crop area by agricultural production methods and crops |
Organic farming |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Organic crop area by agricultural production methods and crops |
Organic farming |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Organic crop area by agricultural production methods and crops |
Organic farming |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
capable of monitoring the real transition |
| Organic crop area by agricultural production methods and crops |
Organic farming |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Organic crop area by agricultural production methods and crops |
Organic farming |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat |
| Organic crop area by agricultural production methods and crops |
Organic farming |
scientific rigor and validation |
Adequate |
based on statistical definitions and not on scientific models; supported by extensive scientific literature |
| Organic crop area by agricultural production methods and crops |
Organic farming |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2022-2023 |
| Organic crop area by agricultural production methods and crops |
Organic farming |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Organic crop area by agricultural production methods and crops |
Organic farming |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Organic crop area by agricultural production methods and crops |
Organic farming |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
26 Countries |
| Organic crop area by agricultural production methods and crops |
Organic farming |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Organic crop production by crops |
Organic farming |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Organic crop production by crops |
Organic farming |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Organic crop production by crops |
Organic farming |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
capable of monitoring the real transition |
| Organic crop production by crops |
Organic farming |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Organic crop production by crops |
Organic farming |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat |
| Organic crop production by crops |
Organic farming |
scientific rigor and validation |
Adequate |
based on statistical definitions and not on scientific models; supported by extensive scientific literature |
| Organic crop production by crops |
Organic farming |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2022-2023 |
| Organic crop production by crops |
Organic farming |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Organic crop production by crops |
Organic farming |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Organic crop production by crops |
Organic farming |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
26 Countries |
| Organic crop production by crops |
Organic farming |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Organic livestock |
Organic farming |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Organic livestock |
Organic farming |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Organic livestock |
Organic farming |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
capable of monitoring the real transition |
| Organic livestock |
Organic farming |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Organic livestock |
Organic farming |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat |
| Organic livestock |
Organic farming |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Organic livestock |
Organic farming |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2022-2023 |
| Organic livestock |
Organic farming |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Organic livestock |
Organic farming |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Organic livestock |
Organic farming |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Organic livestock |
Organic farming |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Organic production of animal products (by product) |
Organic farming |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Organic production of animal products (by product) |
Organic farming |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Organic production of animal products (by product) |
Organic farming |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
capable of monitoring the real transition |
| Organic production of animal products (by product) |
Organic farming |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Organic production of animal products (by product) |
Organic farming |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat |
| Organic production of animal products (by product) |
Organic farming |
scientific rigor and validation |
Adequate |
based on statistical definitions and not on scientific models; supported by extensive scientific literature |
| Organic production of animal products (by product) |
Organic farming |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2022-2023 |
| Organic production of animal products (by product) |
Organic farming |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Organic production of animal products (by product) |
Organic farming |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Organic production of animal products (by product) |
Organic farming |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
26 Countries |
| Organic production of animal products (by product) |
Organic farming |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Organic production of aquaculture products |
Organic farming |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Organic production of aquaculture products |
Organic farming |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Organic production of aquaculture products |
Organic farming |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
capable of monitoring the real transition |
| Organic production of aquaculture products |
Organic farming |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Organic production of aquaculture products |
Organic farming |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat |
| Organic production of aquaculture products |
Organic farming |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Organic production of aquaculture products |
Organic farming |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2022-2023 |
| Organic production of aquaculture products |
Organic farming |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Organic production of aquaculture products |
Organic farming |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Organic production of aquaculture products |
Organic farming |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
26 Countries |
| Organic production of aquaculture products |
Organic farming |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Processors of organic products by NACE Rev. 2 activity(C) |
Organic farming |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Processors of organic products by NACE Rev. 2 activity(C) |
Organic farming |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Processors of organic products by NACE Rev. 2 activity(C) |
Organic farming |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
it does not fully evaluate the real effectiveness of the transition |
| Processors of organic products by NACE Rev. 2 activity(C) |
Organic farming |
decision-usefulness |
Adequate |
useful for monitoring and communication; easy to interpret |
| Processors of organic products by NACE Rev. 2 activity(C) |
Organic farming |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat |
| Processors of organic products by NACE Rev. 2 activity(C) |
Organic farming |
scientific rigor and validation |
Weak |
purely administrative indicator |
| Processors of organic products by NACE Rev. 2 activity(C) |
Organic farming |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2022-2023 |
| Processors of organic products by NACE Rev. 2 activity(C) |
Organic farming |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Processors of organic products by NACE Rev. 2 activity(C) |
Organic farming |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Processors of organic products by NACE Rev. 2 activity(C) |
Organic farming |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
26 Countries |
| Processors of organic products by NACE Rev. 2 activity(C) |
Organic farming |
timeliness |
Adequate |
data updated annually not for all countries |
| Ammonia emissions from agriculture |
GHG emissions |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Ammonia emissions from agriculture |
GHG emissions |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Ammonia emissions from agriculture |
GHG emissions |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
capable of monitoring the real transition |
| Ammonia emissions from agriculture |
GHG emissions |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Ammonia emissions from agriculture |
GHG emissions |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat |
| Ammonia emissions from agriculture |
GHG emissions |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Ammonia emissions from agriculture |
GHG emissions |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2022 |
| Ammonia emissions from agriculture |
GHG emissions |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Ammonia emissions from agriculture |
GHG emissions |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Ammonia emissions from agriculture |
GHG emissions |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Ammonia emissions from agriculture |
GHG emissions |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture |
GHG emissions |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture |
GHG emissions |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture |
GHG emissions |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
capable of monitoring the real transition |
| Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture |
GHG emissions |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture |
GHG emissions |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat |
| Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture |
GHG emissions |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture |
GHG emissions |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2023 |
| Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture |
GHG emissions |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture |
GHG emissions |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture |
GHG emissions |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture |
GHG emissions |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Greenhouse gas emissions by source sector (Agriculture selectable) |
GHG emissions |
integration on food system framework |
Weak |
|
| Greenhouse gas emissions by source sector (Agriculture selectable) |
GHG emissions |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Greenhouse gas emissions by source sector (Agriculture selectable) |
GHG emissions |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
capable of monitoring the real transition |
| Greenhouse gas emissions by source sector (Agriculture selectable) |
GHG emissions |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Greenhouse gas emissions by source sector (Agriculture selectable) |
GHG emissions |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat |
| Greenhouse gas emissions by source sector (Agriculture selectable) |
GHG emissions |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Greenhouse gas emissions by source sector (Agriculture selectable) |
GHG emissions |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2023 |
| Greenhouse gas emissions by source sector (Agriculture selectable) |
GHG emissions |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Greenhouse gas emissions by source sector (Agriculture selectable) |
GHG emissions |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Greenhouse gas emissions by source sector (Agriculture selectable) |
GHG emissions |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Greenhouse gas emissions by source sector (Agriculture selectable) |
GHG emissions |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Emissions (e.g. CO2) from the individual stages of the food value chain |
GHG emissions |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Emissions (e.g. CO2) from the individual stages of the food value chain |
GHG emissions |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Emissions (e.g. CO2) from the individual stages of the food value chain |
GHG emissions |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
capable of monitoring the real transition |
| Emissions (e.g. CO2) from the individual stages of the food value chain |
GHG emissions |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Emissions (e.g. CO2) from the individual stages of the food value chain |
GHG emissions |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
IPCC standards |
| Emissions (e.g. CO2) from the individual stages of the food value chain |
GHG emissions |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Emissions (e.g. CO2) from the individual stages of the food value chain |
GHG emissions |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2022 |
| Emissions (e.g. CO2) from the individual stages of the food value chain |
GHG emissions |
data accessibility |
Adequate |
datasets not always fully accessible |
| Emissions (e.g. CO2) from the individual stages of the food value chain |
GHG emissions |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Emissions (e.g. CO2) from the individual stages of the food value chain |
GHG emissions |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Emissions (e.g. CO2) from the individual stages of the food value chain |
GHG emissions |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Emissions indicators; resulting from agriculture (several, e.g.: -Emissions per capita from pre- and post-production -Emissions per capita from livestock, …) |
GHG emissions |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Emissions indicators; resulting from agriculture (several, e.g.: -Emissions per capita from pre- and post-production -Emissions per capita from livestock, …) |
GHG emissions |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Emissions indicators; resulting from agriculture (several, e.g.: -Emissions per capita from pre- and post-production -Emissions per capita from livestock, …) |
GHG emissions |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
capable of monitoring the real transition |
| Emissions indicators; resulting from agriculture (several, e.g.: -Emissions per capita from pre- and post-production -Emissions per capita from livestock, …) |
GHG emissions |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Emissions indicators; resulting from agriculture (several, e.g.: -Emissions per capita from pre- and post-production -Emissions per capita from livestock, …) |
GHG emissions |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
IPCC standards |
| Emissions indicators; resulting from agriculture (several, e.g.: -Emissions per capita from pre- and post-production -Emissions per capita from livestock, …) |
GHG emissions |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Emissions indicators; resulting from agriculture (several, e.g.: -Emissions per capita from pre- and post-production -Emissions per capita from livestock, …) |
GHG emissions |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2022 |
| Emissions indicators; resulting from agriculture (several, e.g.: -Emissions per capita from pre- and post-production -Emissions per capita from livestock, …) |
GHG emissions |
data accessibility |
Adequate |
datasets not always fully accessible |
| Emissions indicators; resulting from agriculture (several, e.g.: -Emissions per capita from pre- and post-production -Emissions per capita from livestock, …) |
GHG emissions |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Emissions indicators; resulting from agriculture (several, e.g.: -Emissions per capita from pre- and post-production -Emissions per capita from livestock, …) |
GHG emissions |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Emissions indicators; resulting from agriculture (several, e.g.: -Emissions per capita from pre- and post-production -Emissions per capita from livestock, …) |
GHG emissions |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Emission intensity of commodity (e.g. meat of cattle with the bone, fresh or chilled or cereals excluding rice) |
GHG emissions |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Emission intensity of commodity (e.g. meat of cattle with the bone, fresh or chilled or cereals excluding rice) |
GHG emissions |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Emission intensity of commodity (e.g. meat of cattle with the bone, fresh or chilled or cereals excluding rice) |
GHG emissions |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
capable of monitoring the real transition |
| Emission intensity of commodity (e.g. meat of cattle with the bone, fresh or chilled or cereals excluding rice) |
GHG emissions |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Emission intensity of commodity (e.g. meat of cattle with the bone, fresh or chilled or cereals excluding rice) |
GHG emissions |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
IPCC standards |
| Emission intensity of commodity (e.g. meat of cattle with the bone, fresh or chilled or cereals excluding rice) |
GHG emissions |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Emission intensity of commodity (e.g. meat of cattle with the bone, fresh or chilled or cereals excluding rice) |
GHG emissions |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2022 |
| Emission intensity of commodity (e.g. meat of cattle with the bone, fresh or chilled or cereals excluding rice) |
GHG emissions |
data accessibility |
Adequate |
datasets not always fully accessible |
| Emission intensity of commodity (e.g. meat of cattle with the bone, fresh or chilled or cereals excluding rice) |
GHG emissions |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Emission intensity of commodity (e.g. meat of cattle with the bone, fresh or chilled or cereals excluding rice) |
GHG emissions |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Emission intensity of commodity (e.g. meat of cattle with the bone, fresh or chilled or cereals excluding rice) |
GHG emissions |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Emissions from livestock (N2O) |
GHG emissions |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Emissions from livestock (N2O) |
GHG emissions |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Emissions from livestock (N2O) |
GHG emissions |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
capable of monitoring the real transition |
| Emissions from livestock (N2O) |
GHG emissions |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Emissions from livestock (N2O) |
GHG emissions |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
IPCC standards |
| Emissions from livestock (N2O) |
GHG emissions |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Emissions from livestock (N2O) |
GHG emissions |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2022 |
| Emissions from livestock (N2O) |
GHG emissions |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Emissions from livestock (N2O) |
GHG emissions |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Emissions from livestock (N2O) |
GHG emissions |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Emissions from livestock (N2O) |
GHG emissions |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Emissions from livestock (CH4) |
GHG emissions |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Emissions from livestock (CH4) |
GHG emissions |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Emissions from livestock (CH4) |
GHG emissions |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
capable of monitoring the real transition |
| Emissions from livestock (CH4) |
GHG emissions |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Emissions from livestock (CH4) |
GHG emissions |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
IPCC standards |
| Emissions from livestock (CH4) |
GHG emissions |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Emissions from livestock (CH4) |
GHG emissions |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2022 |
| Emissions from livestock (CH4) |
GHG emissions |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Emissions from livestock (CH4) |
GHG emissions |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Emissions from livestock (CH4) |
GHG emissions |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Emissions from livestock (CH4) |
GHG emissions |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Emissions from crops (N2O) |
GHG emissions |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Emissions from crops (N2O) |
GHG emissions |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Emissions from crops (N2O) |
GHG emissions |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
capable of monitoring the real transition |
| Emissions from crops (N2O) |
GHG emissions |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Emissions from crops (N2O) |
GHG emissions |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
IPCC standards |
| Emissions from crops (N2O) |
GHG emissions |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Emissions from crops (N2O) |
GHG emissions |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2022 |
| Emissions from crops (N2O) |
GHG emissions |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Emissions from crops (N2O) |
GHG emissions |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Emissions from crops (N2O) |
GHG emissions |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Emissions from crops (N2O) |
GHG emissions |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Emissions from crops (CH4) |
GHG emissions |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Emissions from crops (CH4) |
GHG emissions |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Emissions from crops (CH4) |
GHG emissions |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
capable of monitoring the real transition |
| Emissions from crops (CH4) |
GHG emissions |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Emissions from crops (CH4) |
GHG emissions |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
IPCC standards |
| Emissions from crops (CH4) |
GHG emissions |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Emissions from crops (CH4) |
GHG emissions |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2022 |
| Emissions from crops (CH4) |
GHG emissions |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Emissions from crops (CH4) |
GHG emissions |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Emissions from crops (CH4) |
GHG emissions |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Emissions from crops (CH4) |
GHG emissions |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Emissions from pre and post agricultural production |
GHG emissions |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Emissions from pre and post agricultural production |
GHG emissions |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Emissions from pre and post agricultural production |
GHG emissions |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
capable of monitoring the real transition |
| Emissions from pre and post agricultural production |
GHG emissions |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Emissions from pre and post agricultural production |
GHG emissions |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
IPCC standards |
| Emissions from pre and post agricultural production |
GHG emissions |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Emissions from pre and post agricultural production |
GHG emissions |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2022 |
| Emissions from pre and post agricultural production |
GHG emissions |
data accessibility |
Adequate |
datasets not always fully accessible |
| Emissions from pre and post agricultural production |
GHG emissions |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Emissions from pre and post agricultural production |
GHG emissions |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Emissions from pre and post agricultural production |
GHG emissions |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Air pollutants by source sector ("Food and beverages industry" selectable) |
Air pollutants |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Air pollutants by source sector ("Food and beverages industry" selectable) |
Air pollutants |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Air pollutants by source sector ("Food and beverages industry" selectable) |
Air pollutants |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
robust for monitoring environmental transition, particularly useful for the industrial phase of the food system |
| Air pollutants by source sector ("Food and beverages industry" selectable) |
Air pollutants |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking, communication, and public environmental strategies; easy to interpret |
| Air pollutants by source sector ("Food and beverages industry" selectable) |
Air pollutants |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat |
| Air pollutants by source sector ("Food and beverages industry" selectable) |
Air pollutants |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Air pollutants by source sector ("Food and beverages industry" selectable) |
Air pollutants |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2022 |
| Air pollutants by source sector ("Food and beverages industry" selectable) |
Air pollutants |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Air pollutants by source sector ("Food and beverages industry" selectable) |
Air pollutants |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Air pollutants by source sector ("Food and beverages industry" selectable) |
Air pollutants |
broad geographical coverage |
Weak |
coverage not well identified |
| Air pollutants by source sector ("Food and beverages industry" selectable) |
Air pollutants |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Use and risk of chemical pesticides |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Use and risk of chemical pesticides |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Use and risk of chemical pesticides |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
capable of monitoring the real transition |
| Use and risk of chemical pesticides |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking, communication, and public environmental strategies; easy to interpret |
| Use and risk of chemical pesticides |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat |
| Use and risk of chemical pesticides |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Use and risk of chemical pesticides |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2022 |
| Use and risk of chemical pesticides |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Use and risk of chemical pesticides |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Use and risk of chemical pesticides |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
16 Countries |
| Use and risk of chemical pesticides |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Sales of pesticides by type of pesticide |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Sales of pesticides by type of pesticide |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
goal alignment |
Adequate |
|
| Sales of pesticides by type of pesticide |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
capable of monitoring the real transition |
| Sales of pesticides by type of pesticide |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking, communication, and public environmental strategies; easy to interpret |
| Sales of pesticides by type of pesticide |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat |
| Sales of pesticides by type of pesticide |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Sales of pesticides by type of pesticide |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2023 |
| Sales of pesticides by type of pesticide |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Sales of pesticides by type of pesticide |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Sales of pesticides by type of pesticide |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
26 Countries |
| Sales of pesticides by type of pesticide |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Harmonised risk indicator 1 for pesticides by categorisation of active substances |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Harmonised risk indicator 1 for pesticides by categorisation of active substances |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Harmonised risk indicator 1 for pesticides by categorisation of active substances |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
capable of monitoring the real transition |
| Harmonised risk indicator 1 for pesticides by categorisation of active substances |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking, communication, and public environmental strategies; easy to interpret |
| Harmonised risk indicator 1 for pesticides by categorisation of active substances |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat |
| Harmonised risk indicator 1 for pesticides by categorisation of active substances |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Harmonised risk indicator 1 for pesticides by categorisation of active substances |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2022 |
| Harmonised risk indicator 1 for pesticides by categorisation of active substances |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Harmonised risk indicator 1 for pesticides by categorisation of active substances |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Harmonised risk indicator 1 for pesticides by categorisation of active substances |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Harmonised risk indicator 1 for pesticides by categorisation of active substances |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Pesticide use per area of cropland or per value of agricultural production or per capita |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Pesticide use per area of cropland or per value of agricultural production or per capita |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
goal alignment |
Adequate |
|
| Pesticide use per area of cropland or per value of agricultural production or per capita |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
capable of monitoring the real transition |
| Pesticide use per area of cropland or per value of agricultural production or per capita |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking, communication, and public environmental strategies; easy to interpret |
| Pesticide use per area of cropland or per value of agricultural production or per capita |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Adequate |
Differences in farming systems and underlying data limit full benchmarking |
| Pesticide use per area of cropland or per value of agricultural production or per capita |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Pesticide use per area of cropland or per value of agricultural production or per capita |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2022 |
| Pesticide use per area of cropland or per value of agricultural production or per capita |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Pesticide use per area of cropland or per value of agricultural production or per capita |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Pesticide use per area of cropland or per value of agricultural production or per capita |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Pesticide use per area of cropland or per value of agricultural production or per capita |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Sales of antimicrobials for food-producing animals |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Sales of antimicrobials for food-producing animals |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Sales of antimicrobials for food-producing animals |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
capable of monitoring the real transition |
| Sales of antimicrobials for food-producing animals |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking, communication, and public environmental strategies; easy to interpret |
| Sales of antimicrobials for food-producing animals |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat |
| Sales of antimicrobials for food-producing animals |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Sales of antimicrobials for food-producing animals |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2022 |
| Sales of antimicrobials for food-producing animals |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Sales of antimicrobials for food-producing animals |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Sales of antimicrobials for food-producing animals |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Sales of antimicrobials for food-producing animals |
Pesticide and antibiotic use |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Consumption of inorganic fertilizers |
Fertilizer use |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Consumption of inorganic fertilizers |
Fertilizer use |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Consumption of inorganic fertilizers |
Fertilizer use |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
capable of monitoring the real transition |
| Consumption of inorganic fertilizers |
Fertilizer use |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Consumption of inorganic fertilizers |
Fertilizer use |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat |
| Consumption of inorganic fertilizers |
Fertilizer use |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Consumption of inorganic fertilizers |
Fertilizer use |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2023 |
| Consumption of inorganic fertilizers |
Fertilizer use |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Consumption of inorganic fertilizers |
Fertilizer use |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Consumption of inorganic fertilizers |
Fertilizer use |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
26 Countries |
| Consumption of inorganic fertilizers |
Fertilizer use |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Use of Nutrient nitrogen N fertilizers per area of cropland |
Fertilizer use |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Use of Nutrient nitrogen N fertilizers per area of cropland |
Fertilizer use |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Use of Nutrient nitrogen N fertilizers per area of cropland |
Fertilizer use |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
capable of monitoring the real transition |
| Use of Nutrient nitrogen N fertilizers per area of cropland |
Fertilizer use |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Use of Nutrient nitrogen N fertilizers per area of cropland |
Fertilizer use |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat |
| Use of Nutrient nitrogen N fertilizers per area of cropland |
Fertilizer use |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Use of Nutrient nitrogen N fertilizers per area of cropland |
Fertilizer use |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2021 or 2022 |
| Use of Nutrient nitrogen N fertilizers per area of cropland |
Fertilizer use |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Use of Nutrient nitrogen N fertilizers per area of cropland |
Fertilizer use |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Use of Nutrient nitrogen N fertilizers per area of cropland |
Fertilizer use |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Use of Nutrient nitrogen N fertilizers per area of cropland |
Fertilizer use |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Use of Nutrient phosphate P2O5 fertilizers per area of cropland |
Fertilizer use |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Use of Nutrient phosphate P2O5 fertilizers per area of cropland |
Fertilizer use |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Use of Nutrient phosphate P2O5 fertilizers per area of cropland |
Fertilizer use |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
capable of monitoring the real transition |
| Use of Nutrient phosphate P2O5 fertilizers per area of cropland |
Fertilizer use |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Use of Nutrient phosphate P2O5 fertilizers per area of cropland |
Fertilizer use |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat |
| Use of Nutrient phosphate P2O5 fertilizers per area of cropland |
Fertilizer use |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Use of Nutrient phosphate P2O5 fertilizers per area of cropland |
Fertilizer use |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2021 or 2022 |
| Use of Nutrient phosphate P2O5 fertilizers per area of cropland |
Fertilizer use |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Use of Nutrient phosphate P2O5 fertilizers per area of cropland |
Fertilizer use |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Use of Nutrient phosphate P2O5 fertilizers per area of cropland |
Fertilizer use |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Use of Nutrient phosphate P2O5 fertilizers per area of cropland |
Fertilizer use |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Use of Nutrient potash K2O fertilizers per area of cropland |
Fertilizer use |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Use of Nutrient potash K2O fertilizers per area of cropland |
Fertilizer use |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Use of Nutrient potash K2O fertilizers per area of cropland |
Fertilizer use |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
capable of monitoring the real transition |
| Use of Nutrient potash K2O fertilizers per area of cropland |
Fertilizer use |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Use of Nutrient potash K2O fertilizers per area of cropland |
Fertilizer use |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat |
| Use of Nutrient potash K2O fertilizers per area of cropland |
Fertilizer use |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Use of Nutrient potash K2O fertilizers per area of cropland |
Fertilizer use |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2021 or 2022 |
| Use of Nutrient potash K2O fertilizers per area of cropland |
Fertilizer use |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Use of Nutrient potash K2O fertilizers per area of cropland |
Fertilizer use |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Use of Nutrient potash K2O fertilizers per area of cropland |
Fertilizer use |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Use of Nutrient potash K2O fertilizers per area of cropland |
Fertilizer use |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Fertilizer consumption |
Fertilizer use |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Fertilizer consumption |
Fertilizer use |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Fertilizer consumption |
Fertilizer use |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
capable of monitoring the real transition |
| Fertilizer consumption |
Fertilizer use |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Fertilizer consumption |
Fertilizer use |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat |
| Fertilizer consumption |
Fertilizer use |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Fertilizer consumption |
Fertilizer use |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2021 or 2022 |
| Fertilizer consumption |
Fertilizer use |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Fertilizer consumption |
Fertilizer use |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Fertilizer consumption |
Fertilizer use |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Fertilizer consumption |
Fertilizer use |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Gross nutrient balance per hectare UAA - Nitrogen |
Fertilizer use |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Gross nutrient balance per hectare UAA - Nitrogen |
Fertilizer use |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Gross nutrient balance per hectare UAA - Nitrogen |
Fertilizer use |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
capable of monitoring the real transition |
| Gross nutrient balance per hectare UAA - Nitrogen |
Fertilizer use |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Gross nutrient balance per hectare UAA - Nitrogen |
Fertilizer use |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat |
| Gross nutrient balance per hectare UAA - Nitrogen |
Fertilizer use |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Gross nutrient balance per hectare UAA - Nitrogen |
Fertilizer use |
data availability |
Weak |
data availability not well identified |
| Gross nutrient balance per hectare UAA - Nitrogen |
Fertilizer use |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Gross nutrient balance per hectare UAA - Nitrogen |
Fertilizer use |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Gross nutrient balance per hectare UAA - Nitrogen |
Fertilizer use |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
15 Countries |
| Gross nutrient balance per hectare UAA - Nitrogen |
Fertilizer use |
timeliness |
Weak |
update not well identified |
| Gross nutrient balance per hectare UAA - Phosphorus |
Fertilizer use |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Gross nutrient balance per hectare UAA - Phosphorus |
Fertilizer use |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Gross nutrient balance per hectare UAA - Phosphorus |
Fertilizer use |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
capable of monitoring the real transition |
| Gross nutrient balance per hectare UAA - Phosphorus |
Fertilizer use |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Gross nutrient balance per hectare UAA - Phosphorus |
Fertilizer use |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat |
| Gross nutrient balance per hectare UAA - Phosphorus |
Fertilizer use |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Gross nutrient balance per hectare UAA - Phosphorus |
Fertilizer use |
data availability |
Weak |
data availability not well identified |
| Gross nutrient balance per hectare UAA - Phosphorus |
Fertilizer use |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Gross nutrient balance per hectare UAA - Phosphorus |
Fertilizer use |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Gross nutrient balance per hectare UAA - Phosphorus |
Fertilizer use |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
15 Countries |
| Gross nutrient balance per hectare UAA - Phosphorus |
Fertilizer use |
timeliness |
Weak |
update not well identified |
| Drought impact area on ecosystems |
Impacts of climate change |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Drought impact area on ecosystems |
Impacts of climate change |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Drought impact area on ecosystems |
Impacts of climate change |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
capable of monitoring the real transition |
| Drought impact area on ecosystems |
Impacts of climate change |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Drought impact area on ecosystems |
Impacts of climate change |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat |
| Drought impact area on ecosystems |
Impacts of climate change |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Drought impact area on ecosystems |
Impacts of climate change |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2023 |
| Drought impact area on ecosystems |
Impacts of climate change |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Drought impact area on ecosystems |
Impacts of climate change |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Drought impact area on ecosystems |
Impacts of climate change |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Drought impact area on ecosystems |
Impacts of climate change |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Livestock units per agricultural land area (major livestock types) |
Animal keeping |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Livestock units per agricultural land area (major livestock types) |
Animal keeping |
goal alignment |
Adequate |
|
| Livestock units per agricultural land area (major livestock types) |
Animal keeping |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
it does not fully evaluate the real effectiveness of the transition |
| Livestock units per agricultural land area (major livestock types) |
Animal keeping |
decision-usefulness |
Adequate |
Useful for policymaking but it requires complementary indicators for targeted decisions |
| Livestock units per agricultural land area (major livestock types) |
Animal keeping |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat |
| Livestock units per agricultural land area (major livestock types) |
Animal keeping |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Livestock units per agricultural land area (major livestock types) |
Animal keeping |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2022 |
| Livestock units per agricultural land area (major livestock types) |
Animal keeping |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Livestock units per agricultural land area (major livestock types) |
Animal keeping |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Livestock units per agricultural land area (major livestock types) |
Animal keeping |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Livestock units per agricultural land area (major livestock types) |
Animal keeping |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Livestock production index |
Animal keeping |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Livestock production index |
Animal keeping |
goal alignment |
Adequate |
|
| Livestock production index |
Animal keeping |
transition monitoring |
Weak |
limited ability to contribute to food system transition |
| Livestock production index |
Animal keeping |
decision-usefulness |
Adequate |
Useful for monitoring performance in the livestock sector; easy to interpret |
| Livestock production index |
Animal keeping |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard FAO |
| Livestock production index |
Animal keeping |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Livestock production index |
Animal keeping |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2022 |
| Livestock production index |
Animal keeping |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Livestock production index |
Animal keeping |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Livestock production index |
Animal keeping |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Livestock production index |
Animal keeping |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Share of laying hens by way of keeping (Enriched cage, Free range, Barn, Organic) |
Animal keeping |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Share of laying hens by way of keeping (Enriched cage, Free range, Barn, Organic) |
Animal keeping |
goal alignment |
Adequate |
|
| Share of laying hens by way of keeping (Enriched cage, Free range, Barn, Organic) |
Animal keeping |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
capable of monitoring the real transition |
| Share of laying hens by way of keeping (Enriched cage, Free range, Barn, Organic) |
Animal keeping |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Useful for decision makers |
| Share of laying hens by way of keeping (Enriched cage, Free range, Barn, Organic) |
Animal keeping |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard UE |
| Share of laying hens by way of keeping (Enriched cage, Free range, Barn, Organic) |
Animal keeping |
scientific rigor and validation |
Adequate |
based on statistical definitions and not on scientific models; supported by extensive scientific literature |
| Share of laying hens by way of keeping (Enriched cage, Free range, Barn, Organic) |
Animal keeping |
data availability |
Adequate |
Last year 2021 |
| Share of laying hens by way of keeping (Enriched cage, Free range, Barn, Organic) |
Animal keeping |
data accessibility |
Adequate |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Share of laying hens by way of keeping (Enriched cage, Free range, Barn, Organic) |
Animal keeping |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Share of laying hens by way of keeping (Enriched cage, Free range, Barn, Organic) |
Animal keeping |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Share of laying hens by way of keeping (Enriched cage, Free range, Barn, Organic) |
Animal keeping |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Food waste and food waste prevention by NACE Rev. 2 activity |
Food waste & food loss |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Food waste and food waste prevention by NACE Rev. 2 activity |
Food waste & food loss |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Food waste and food waste prevention by NACE Rev. 2 activity |
Food waste & food loss |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
capable of monitoring the real transition |
| Food waste and food waste prevention by NACE Rev. 2 activity |
Food waste & food loss |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Food waste and food waste prevention by NACE Rev. 2 activity |
Food waste & food loss |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat |
| Food waste and food waste prevention by NACE Rev. 2 activity |
Food waste & food loss |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Food waste and food waste prevention by NACE Rev. 2 activity |
Food waste & food loss |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2022 |
| Food waste and food waste prevention by NACE Rev. 2 activity |
Food waste & food loss |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Food waste and food waste prevention by NACE Rev. 2 activity |
Food waste & food loss |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Food waste and food waste prevention by NACE Rev. 2 activity |
Food waste & food loss |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Food waste and food waste prevention by NACE Rev. 2 activity |
Food waste & food loss |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Incidence of caloric losses at retail distribution level |
Food waste & food loss |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Incidence of caloric losses at retail distribution level |
Food waste & food loss |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Incidence of caloric losses at retail distribution level |
Food waste & food loss |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
capable of monitoring the real transition |
| Incidence of caloric losses at retail distribution level |
Food waste & food loss |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Incidence of caloric losses at retail distribution level |
Food waste & food loss |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat |
| Incidence of caloric losses at retail distribution level |
Food waste & food loss |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Incidence of caloric losses at retail distribution level |
Food waste & food loss |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2023 |
| Incidence of caloric losses at retail distribution level |
Food waste & food loss |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Incidence of caloric losses at retail distribution level |
Food waste & food loss |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Incidence of caloric losses at retail distribution level |
Food waste & food loss |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Incidence of caloric losses at retail distribution level |
Food waste & food loss |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Nitrate in groundwater |
Water quality |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Nitrate in groundwater |
Water quality |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Nitrate in groundwater |
Water quality |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
capable of monitoring the real transition |
| Nitrate in groundwater |
Water quality |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Nitrate in groundwater |
Water quality |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat |
| Nitrate in groundwater |
Water quality |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Nitrate in groundwater |
Water quality |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2022 |
| Nitrate in groundwater |
Water quality |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Nitrate in groundwater |
Water quality |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Nitrate in groundwater |
Water quality |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
18 Countries |
| Nitrate in groundwater |
Water quality |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Farm modernisation |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Farm modernisation |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
goal alignment |
Adequate |
|
| Farm modernisation |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
it does not fully evaluate the real effectiveness of the transition |
| Farm modernisation |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Farm modernisation |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Adequate |
limited to UE countries |
| Farm modernisation |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
scientific rigor and validation |
Adequate |
based on statistical definitions and not on scientific models |
| Farm modernisation |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data availability |
Strong |
the links provide up-to-date information. |
| Farm modernisation |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data accessibility |
Adequate |
datasets not always fully accessible; aggregated datasets |
| Farm modernisation |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
Limited automatic integration between different datasets |
| Farm modernisation |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Farm modernisation |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Adaptation to climate change |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Adaptation to climate change |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Adaptation to climate change |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
it does not fully evaluate the real effectiveness of the transition |
| Adaptation to climate change |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Adaptation to climate change |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Adequate |
limited to UE countries |
| Adaptation to climate change |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
scientific rigor and validation |
Adequate |
based on statistical definitions and not on scientific models |
| Adaptation to climate change |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data availability |
Strong |
the links provide up-to-date information. |
| Adaptation to climate change |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data accessibility |
Adequate |
datasets not always fully accessible; aggregated datasets |
| Adaptation to climate change |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
Limited automatic integration between different datasets |
| Adaptation to climate change |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Adaptation to climate change |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Reducing emissions in the livestock sector |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Reducing emissions in the livestock sector |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Reducing emissions in the livestock sector |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
it does not fully evaluate the real effectiveness of the transition |
| Reducing emissions in the livestock sector |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Reducing emissions in the livestock sector |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Adequate |
limited to UE countries |
| Reducing emissions in the livestock sector |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
scientific rigor and validation |
Adequate |
based on statistical definitions and not on scientific models |
| Reducing emissions in the livestock sector |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data availability |
Strong |
the links provide up-to-date information. |
| Reducing emissions in the livestock sector |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data accessibility |
Adequate |
datasets not always fully accessible; aggregated datasets |
| Reducing emissions in the livestock sector |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
Limited automatic integration between different datasets |
| Reducing emissions in the livestock sector |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Reducing emissions in the livestock sector |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Carbon storage in soils and biomass |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Carbon storage in soils and biomass |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Carbon storage in soils and biomass |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
it does not fully evaluate the real effectiveness of the transition |
| Carbon storage in soils and biomass |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Carbon storage in soils and biomass |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Adequate |
limited to UE countries |
| Carbon storage in soils and biomass |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
scientific rigor and validation |
Adequate |
based on statistical definitions and not on scientific models |
| Carbon storage in soils and biomass |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data availability |
Strong |
the links provide up-to-date information. |
| Carbon storage in soils and biomass |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data accessibility |
Adequate |
datasets not always fully accessible; aggregated datasets |
| Carbon storage in soils and biomass |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
Limited automatic integration between different datasets |
| Carbon storage in soils and biomass |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Carbon storage in soils and biomass |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Investments related to climate |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Investments related to climate |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Investments related to climate |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
it does not fully evaluate the real effectiveness of the transition |
| Investments related to climate |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Investments related to climate |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Adequate |
limited to UE countries |
| Investments related to climate |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
scientific rigor and validation |
Adequate |
based on statistical definitions and not on scientific models |
| Investments related to climate |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data availability |
Strong |
the links provide up-to-date information. |
| Investments related to climate |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data accessibility |
Adequate |
datasets not always fully accessible; aggregated datasets |
| Investments related to climate |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
Limited automatic integration between different datasets |
| Investments related to climate |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Investments related to climate |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Improving air quality |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Improving air quality |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Improving air quality |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
it does not fully evaluate the real effectiveness of the transition |
| Improving air quality |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Improving air quality |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Adequate |
limited to UE countries |
| Improving air quality |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
scientific rigor and validation |
Adequate |
based on statistical definitions and not on scientific models |
| Improving air quality |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data availability |
Strong |
the links provide up-to-date information. |
| Improving air quality |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data accessibility |
Adequate |
datasets not always fully accessible; aggregated datasets |
| Improving air quality |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
Limited automatic integration between different datasets |
| Improving air quality |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Improving air quality |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Sustainable and reduced use of pesticides |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Sustainable and reduced use of pesticides |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Sustainable and reduced use of pesticides |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
it does not fully evaluate the real effectiveness of the transition |
| Sustainable and reduced use of pesticides |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Sustainable and reduced use of pesticides |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Adequate |
limited to UE countries |
| Sustainable and reduced use of pesticides |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
scientific rigor and validation |
Adequate |
based on statistical definitions and not on scientific models |
| Sustainable and reduced use of pesticides |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data availability |
Strong |
the links provide up-to-date information. |
| Sustainable and reduced use of pesticides |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data accessibility |
Adequate |
datasets not always fully accessible; aggregated datasets |
| Sustainable and reduced use of pesticides |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
Limited automatic integration between different datasets |
| Sustainable and reduced use of pesticides |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Sustainable and reduced use of pesticides |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Environmental performance in the livestock sector |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Environmental performance in the livestock sector |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Environmental performance in the livestock sector |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
it does not fully evaluate the real effectiveness of the transition |
| Environmental performance in the livestock sector |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Environmental performance in the livestock sector |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Adequate |
limited to UE countries |
| Environmental performance in the livestock sector |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
scientific rigor and validation |
Adequate |
based on statistical definitions and not on scientific models |
| Environmental performance in the livestock sector |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data availability |
Strong |
the links provide up-to-date information. |
| Environmental performance in the livestock sector |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data accessibility |
Adequate |
datasets not always fully accessible; aggregated datasets |
| Environmental performance in the livestock sector |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
Limited automatic integration between different datasets |
| Environmental performance in the livestock sector |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Environmental performance in the livestock sector |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Investment related to natural resources |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Investment related to natural resources |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Investment related to natural resources |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
it does not fully evaluate the real effectiveness of the transition |
| Investment related to natural resources |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Investment related to natural resources |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Adequate |
limited to UE countries |
| Investment related to natural resources |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
scientific rigor and validation |
Adequate |
based on statistical definitions and not on scientific models |
| Investment related to natural resources |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data availability |
Strong |
the links provide up-to-date information. |
| Investment related to natural resources |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data accessibility |
Adequate |
datasets not always fully accessible; aggregated datasets |
| Investment related to natural resources |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
Limited automatic integration between different datasets |
| Investment related to natural resources |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Investment related to natural resources |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Environmental or climate-related performance through investment in rural areas |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Environmental or climate-related performance through investment in rural areas |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Environmental or climate-related performance through investment in rural areas |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
it does not fully evaluate the real effectiveness of the transition |
| Environmental or climate-related performance through investment in rural areas |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Environmental or climate-related performance through investment in rural areas |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Adequate |
limited to UE countries |
| Environmental or climate-related performance through investment in rural areas |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
scientific rigor and validation |
Adequate |
based on statistical definitions and not on scientific models |
| Environmental or climate-related performance through investment in rural areas |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data availability |
Strong |
the links provide up-to-date information. |
| Environmental or climate-related performance through investment in rural areas |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data accessibility |
Adequate |
datasets not always fully accessible; aggregated datasets |
| Environmental or climate-related performance through investment in rural areas |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
Limited automatic integration between different datasets |
| Environmental or climate-related performance through investment in rural areas |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Environmental or climate-related performance through investment in rural areas |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Development of organic agriculture |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Development of organic agriculture |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Development of organic agriculture |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
it does not fully evaluate the real effectiveness of the transition |
| Development of organic agriculture |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Development of organic agriculture |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Adequate |
limited to UE countries |
| Development of organic agriculture |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
scientific rigor and validation |
Adequate |
based on statistical definitions and not on scientific models |
| Development of organic agriculture |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data availability |
Strong |
the links provide up-to-date information. |
| Development of organic agriculture |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data accessibility |
Adequate |
datasets not always fully accessible; aggregated datasets |
| Development of organic agriculture |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
Limited automatic integration between different datasets |
| Development of organic agriculture |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Development of organic agriculture |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Preserving habitats and species |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Preserving habitats and species |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Preserving habitats and species |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
it does not fully evaluate the real effectiveness of the transition |
| Preserving habitats and species |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Preserving habitats and species |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Adequate |
limited to UE countries |
| Preserving habitats and species |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
scientific rigor and validation |
Adequate |
based on statistical definitions and not on scientific models |
| Preserving habitats and species |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data availability |
Strong |
the links provide up-to-date information. |
| Preserving habitats and species |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data accessibility |
Adequate |
datasets not always fully accessible; aggregated datasets |
| Preserving habitats and species |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
Limited automatic integration between different datasets |
| Preserving habitats and species |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Preserving habitats and species |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Generational renewal |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Generational renewal |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
goal alignment |
Adequate |
|
| Generational renewal |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
it does not fully evaluate the real effectiveness of the transition |
| Generational renewal |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Generational renewal |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Adequate |
limited to UE countries |
| Generational renewal |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
scientific rigor and validation |
Adequate |
based on statistical definitions and not on scientific models |
| Generational renewal |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data availability |
Strong |
the links provide up-to-date information. |
| Generational renewal |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data accessibility |
Adequate |
datasets not always fully accessible; aggregated datasets |
| Generational renewal |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
Limited automatic integration between different datasets |
| Generational renewal |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Generational renewal |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Limiting antimicrobial use |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Limiting antimicrobial use |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Limiting antimicrobial use |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
it does not fully evaluate the real effectiveness of the transition |
| Limiting antimicrobial use |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Limiting antimicrobial use |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Adequate |
limited to UE countries |
| Limiting antimicrobial use |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
scientific rigor and validation |
Adequate |
based on statistical definitions and not on scientific models |
| Limiting antimicrobial use |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data availability |
Strong |
the links provide up-to-date information. |
| Limiting antimicrobial use |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data accessibility |
Adequate |
datasets not always fully accessible; aggregated datasets |
| Limiting antimicrobial use |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
Limited automatic integration between different datasets |
| Limiting antimicrobial use |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Limiting antimicrobial use |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Improving animal welfare |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Improving animal welfare |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
goal alignment |
Adequate |
|
| Improving animal welfare |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
it does not fully evaluate the real effectiveness of the transition |
| Improving animal welfare |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Improving animal welfare |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Adequate |
limited to UE countries |
| Improving animal welfare |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
scientific rigor and validation |
Adequate |
based on statistical definitions and not on scientific models |
| Improving animal welfare |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data availability |
Strong |
the links provide up-to-date information. |
| Improving animal welfare |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data accessibility |
Adequate |
datasets not always fully accessible; aggregated datasets |
| Improving animal welfare |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
Limited automatic integration between different datasets |
| Improving animal welfare |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Improving animal welfare |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Redistribution to smaller farms |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Redistribution to smaller farms |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
goal alignment |
Adequate |
|
| Redistribution to smaller farms |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
it does not fully evaluate the real effectiveness of the transition |
| Redistribution to smaller farms |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Redistribution to smaller farms |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Adequate |
limited to UE countries |
| Redistribution to smaller farms |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
scientific rigor and validation |
Adequate |
based on statistical definitions and not on scientific models |
| Redistribution to smaller farms |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data availability |
Strong |
the links provide up-to-date information. |
| Redistribution to smaller farms |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data accessibility |
Adequate |
datasets not always fully accessible; aggregated datasets |
| Redistribution to smaller farms |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
Limited automatic integration between different datasets |
| Redistribution to smaller farms |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Redistribution to smaller farms |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Agriculture share of Government Expenditure |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Agriculture share of Government Expenditure |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
goal alignment |
Adequate |
|
| Agriculture share of Government Expenditure |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
transition monitoring |
Weak |
it does not evaluate the real effectiveness of the transition; no link with food system outcomes |
| Agriculture share of Government Expenditure |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking and communication; easy to interpret |
| Agriculture share of Government Expenditure |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Fao |
| Agriculture share of Government Expenditure |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
scientific rigor and validation |
Adequate |
based on statistical definitions and not on scientific models |
| Agriculture share of Government Expenditure |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2022 |
| Agriculture share of Government Expenditure |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data accessibility |
Adequate |
datasets not always fully accessible; aggregated datasets |
| Agriculture share of Government Expenditure |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Agriculture share of Government Expenditure |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Agriculture share of Government Expenditure |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Agricultural training of farm managers (categorized by "Only practical agricultural experience", "Basic agricultural training" and "Full agricultural training") |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Agricultural training of farm managers (categorized by "Only practical agricultural experience", "Basic agricultural training" and "Full agricultural training") |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
goal alignment |
Adequate |
|
| Agricultural training of farm managers (categorized by "Only practical agricultural experience", "Basic agricultural training" and "Full agricultural training") |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
it does not evaluate the real effectiveness of the transition; no link with food system outcomes |
| Agricultural training of farm managers (categorized by "Only practical agricultural experience", "Basic agricultural training" and "Full agricultural training") |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
decision-usefulness |
Adequate |
Useful for training and capacity building policies; easy to interpret |
| Agricultural training of farm managers (categorized by "Only practical agricultural experience", "Basic agricultural training" and "Full agricultural training") |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat |
| Agricultural training of farm managers (categorized by "Only practical agricultural experience", "Basic agricultural training" and "Full agricultural training") |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
scientific rigor and validation |
Adequate |
based on statistical definitions and not on scientific models |
| Agricultural training of farm managers (categorized by "Only practical agricultural experience", "Basic agricultural training" and "Full agricultural training") |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data availability |
Adequate |
Last year 2020 |
| Agricultural training of farm managers (categorized by "Only practical agricultural experience", "Basic agricultural training" and "Full agricultural training") |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Agricultural training of farm managers (categorized by "Only practical agricultural experience", "Basic agricultural training" and "Full agricultural training") |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Agricultural training of farm managers (categorized by "Only practical agricultural experience", "Basic agricultural training" and "Full agricultural training") |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Agricultural training of farm managers (categorized by "Only practical agricultural experience", "Basic agricultural training" and "Full agricultural training") |
Sus. development_primary prod. |
timeliness |
Adequate |
every 3-4 years |
| Disaster risk reduction progress score (1-5 scale; 5=best) |
Ecological resilience |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Disaster risk reduction progress score (1-5 scale; 5=best) |
Ecological resilience |
goal alignment |
Adequate |
|
| Disaster risk reduction progress score (1-5 scale; 5=best) |
Ecological resilience |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
it does not fully evaluate the real effectiveness of the transition |
| Disaster risk reduction progress score (1-5 scale; 5=best) |
Ecological resilience |
decision-usefulness |
Adequate |
useful for policymaking; too aggregated and qualitative for specific actions in the food system |
| Disaster risk reduction progress score (1-5 scale; 5=best) |
Ecological resilience |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Adequate |
limited standardization |
| Disaster risk reduction progress score (1-5 scale; 5=best) |
Ecological resilience |
scientific rigor and validation |
Weak |
based on self-assessment, not on validated quantitative methods |
| Disaster risk reduction progress score (1-5 scale; 5=best) |
Ecological resilience |
data availability |
Weak |
Last year 2011 |
| Disaster risk reduction progress score (1-5 scale; 5=best) |
Ecological resilience |
data accessibility |
Adequate |
Publicly accessible datasets, not always in standardized databases with complete metadata |
| Disaster risk reduction progress score (1-5 scale; 5=best) |
Ecological resilience |
data interoperability |
Weak |
difficult to integrate with other indicators with national coverage |
| Disaster risk reduction progress score (1-5 scale; 5=best) |
Ecological resilience |
broad geographical coverage |
Weak |
8 Countries |
| Disaster risk reduction progress score (1-5 scale; 5=best) |
Ecological resilience |
timeliness |
Weak |
data availability not well identified |
| Consumption Footprint - Food |
Cross-cutting indicators |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Consumption Footprint - Food |
Cross-cutting indicators |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Consumption Footprint - Food |
Cross-cutting indicators |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
capable of monitoring the real transition |
| Consumption Footprint - Food |
Cross-cutting indicators |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking |
| Consumption Footprint - Food |
Cross-cutting indicators |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard Eurostat |
| Consumption Footprint - Food |
Cross-cutting indicators |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated |
| Consumption Footprint - Food |
Cross-cutting indicators |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2023 |
| Consumption Footprint - Food |
Cross-cutting indicators |
data accessibility |
Adequate |
Accessible datasets, not fully open/raw |
| Consumption Footprint - Food |
Cross-cutting indicators |
data interoperability |
Strong |
integrable with other indicators with national coverage |
| Consumption Footprint - Food |
Cross-cutting indicators |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Consumption Footprint - Food |
Cross-cutting indicators |
timeliness |
Strong |
data updated annually |
| Obesity rate by body mass index (BMI) |
Nutrition and Health |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Obesity rate by body mass index (BMI) |
Nutrition and Health |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Obesity rate by body mass index (BMI) |
Nutrition and Health |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
Outcome indicator, but limited ability to capture transition mechanisms without complementary indicators |
| Obesity rate by body mass index (BMI) |
Nutrition and Health |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking, communication, and public health strategies; easy to interpret |
| Obesity rate by body mass index (BMI) |
Nutrition and Health |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard WHO/Eurostat |
| Obesity rate by body mass index (BMI) |
Nutrition and Health |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Obesity rate by body mass index (BMI) |
Nutrition and Health |
data availability |
Strong |
Widely available through WHO, OECD, Eurostat, and national surveys |
| Obesity rate by body mass index (BMI) |
Nutrition and Health |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Obesity rate by body mass index (BMI) |
Nutrition and Health |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Can be linked with health/nutrition datasets |
| Obesity rate by body mass index (BMI) |
Nutrition and Health |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
26-27 Countries |
| Obesity rate by body mass index (BMI) |
Nutrition and Health |
timeliness |
Adequate |
Data updated periodically but not annually in many countries |
| Body mass index (BMI) by sex, age and degree of urbanisation |
Nutrition and Health |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Body mass index (BMI) by sex, age and degree of urbanisation |
Nutrition and Health |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Body mass index (BMI) by sex, age and degree of urbanisation |
Nutrition and Health |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
Outcome indicator, but limited ability to capture transition mechanisms without complementary indicators |
| Body mass index (BMI) by sex, age and degree of urbanisation |
Nutrition and Health |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking, communication, and public health strategies; easy to interpret |
| Body mass index (BMI) by sex, age and degree of urbanisation |
Nutrition and Health |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard WHO/Eurostat |
| Body mass index (BMI) by sex, age and degree of urbanisation |
Nutrition and Health |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Body mass index (BMI) by sex, age and degree of urbanisation |
Nutrition and Health |
data availability |
Adequate |
Last year 2019 |
| Body mass index (BMI) by sex, age and degree of urbanisation |
Nutrition and Health |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Body mass index (BMI) by sex, age and degree of urbanisation |
Nutrition and Health |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
EHIS integrable but long periodicity |
| Body mass index (BMI) by sex, age and degree of urbanisation |
Nutrition and Health |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
26 Countries |
| Body mass index (BMI) by sex, age and degree of urbanisation |
Nutrition and Health |
timeliness |
Weak |
>3 years |
| Person distribution by body mass index, educational attainment level, sex and age |
Nutrition and Health |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Person distribution by body mass index, educational attainment level, sex and age |
Nutrition and Health |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Person distribution by body mass index, educational attainment level, sex and age |
Nutrition and Health |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
Outcome indicator, but limited ability to capture transition mechanisms without complementary indicators |
| Person distribution by body mass index, educational attainment level, sex and age |
Nutrition and Health |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Official source Eurostat, dataset EU-SILC |
| Person distribution by body mass index, educational attainment level, sex and age |
Nutrition and Health |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Adequate |
standard WHO/Eurostat but age from 16 years |
| Person distribution by body mass index, educational attainment level, sex and age |
Nutrition and Health |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Person distribution by body mass index, educational attainment level, sex and age |
Nutrition and Health |
data availability |
Adequate |
Last year 2022 |
| Person distribution by body mass index, educational attainment level, sex and age |
Nutrition and Health |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Person distribution by body mass index, educational attainment level, sex and age |
Nutrition and Health |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
EHIS integrable but long periodicity |
| Person distribution by body mass index, educational attainment level, sex and age |
Nutrition and Health |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
26 Countries |
| Person distribution by body mass index, educational attainment level, sex and age |
Nutrition and Health |
timeliness |
Adequate |
3 years |
| Body mass index (BMI) by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Nutrition and Health |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Body mass index (BMI) by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Nutrition and Health |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Body mass index (BMI) by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Nutrition and Health |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
Outcome indicator, but limited ability to capture transition mechanisms without complementary indicators |
| Body mass index (BMI) by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Nutrition and Health |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking, communication, and public health strategies; easy to interpret |
| Body mass index (BMI) by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Nutrition and Health |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard WHO/Eurostat |
| Body mass index (BMI) by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Nutrition and Health |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Body mass index (BMI) by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Nutrition and Health |
data availability |
Adequate |
Last year 2019 |
| Body mass index (BMI) by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Nutrition and Health |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Body mass index (BMI) by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Nutrition and Health |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
EHIS integrable but long periodicity |
| Body mass index (BMI) by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Nutrition and Health |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
26 Countries |
| Body mass index (BMI) by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Nutrition and Health |
timeliness |
Weak |
>3 years |
| Body mass index (BMI) by sex, age and income quintile |
Nutrition and Health |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Body mass index (BMI) by sex, age and income quintile |
Nutrition and Health |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Body mass index (BMI) by sex, age and income quintile |
Nutrition and Health |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
Outcome indicator, but limited ability to capture transition mechanisms without complementary indicators |
| Body mass index (BMI) by sex, age and income quintile |
Nutrition and Health |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking, communication, and public health strategies; easy to interpret |
| Body mass index (BMI) by sex, age and income quintile |
Nutrition and Health |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard WHO/Eurostat |
| Body mass index (BMI) by sex, age and income quintile |
Nutrition and Health |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Body mass index (BMI) by sex, age and income quintile |
Nutrition and Health |
data availability |
Adequate |
Last year 2019 |
| Body mass index (BMI) by sex, age and income quintile |
Nutrition and Health |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Body mass index (BMI) by sex, age and income quintile |
Nutrition and Health |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
EHIS integrable but long periodicity |
| Body mass index (BMI) by sex, age and income quintile |
Nutrition and Health |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
26 Countries |
| Body mass index (BMI) by sex, age and income quintile |
Nutrition and Health |
timeliness |
Weak |
>3 years |
| Prevalence of obesity in the adult population (18 years and older) |
Nutrition and Health |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Prevalence of obesity in the adult population (18 years and older) |
Nutrition and Health |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Prevalence of obesity in the adult population (18 years and older) |
Nutrition and Health |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
Outcome indicator, but limited ability to capture transition mechanisms without complementary indicators |
| Prevalence of obesity in the adult population (18 years and older) |
Nutrition and Health |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking, communication, and public health strategies; easy to interpret |
| Prevalence of obesity in the adult population (18 years and older) |
Nutrition and Health |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard WHO/Eurostat |
| Prevalence of obesity in the adult population (18 years and older) |
Nutrition and Health |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Prevalence of obesity in the adult population (18 years and older) |
Nutrition and Health |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2022 |
| Prevalence of obesity in the adult population (18 years and older) |
Nutrition and Health |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Prevalence of obesity in the adult population (18 years and older) |
Nutrition and Health |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Large FAOSTAT database, integrable with other indicators |
| Prevalence of obesity in the adult population (18 years and older) |
Nutrition and Health |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
26 Countries |
| Prevalence of obesity in the adult population (18 years and older) |
Nutrition and Health |
timeliness |
Weak |
>3 years |
| Percentage of children under 5 years of age who are overweight (modelled estimates) |
Nutrition and Health |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Percentage of children under 5 years of age who are overweight (modelled estimates) |
Nutrition and Health |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Percentage of children under 5 years of age who are overweight (modelled estimates) |
Nutrition and Health |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
Outcome indicator, but limited ability to capture transition mechanisms without complementary indicators |
| Percentage of children under 5 years of age who are overweight (modelled estimates) |
Nutrition and Health |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly useful for policymaking, communication, and public health strategies; easy to interpret |
| Percentage of children under 5 years of age who are overweight (modelled estimates) |
Nutrition and Health |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
standard FAO methodologies |
| Percentage of children under 5 years of age who are overweight (modelled estimates) |
Nutrition and Health |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Percentage of children under 5 years of age who are overweight (modelled estimates) |
Nutrition and Health |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2022 |
| Percentage of children under 5 years of age who are overweight (modelled estimates) |
Nutrition and Health |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Percentage of children under 5 years of age who are overweight (modelled estimates) |
Nutrition and Health |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Large FAOSTAT database, integrable with other indicators |
| Percentage of children under 5 years of age who are overweight (modelled estimates) |
Nutrition and Health |
broad geographical coverage |
Weak |
12 Countries |
| Percentage of children under 5 years of age who are overweight (modelled estimates) |
Nutrition and Health |
timeliness |
Adequate |
3 years |
| Prevalence of overweight and obesity among boys and girls aged 7-9 years |
Nutrition and Health |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Prevalence of overweight and obesity among boys and girls aged 7-9 years |
Nutrition and Health |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Prevalence of overweight and obesity among boys and girls aged 7-9 years |
Nutrition and Health |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
Outcome indicator: prevalence of childhood overweight/obesity. |
| Prevalence of overweight and obesity among boys and girls aged 7-9 years |
Nutrition and Health |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Official source: WHO, COSI report |
| Prevalence of overweight and obesity among boys and girls aged 7-9 years |
Nutrition and Health |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
WHO, harmonized methodology for surveillance |
| Prevalence of overweight and obesity among boys and girls aged 7-9 years |
Nutrition and Health |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Prevalence of overweight and obesity among boys and girls aged 7-9 years |
Nutrition and Health |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2024 |
| Prevalence of overweight and obesity among boys and girls aged 7-9 years |
Nutrition and Health |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Prevalence of overweight and obesity among boys and girls aged 7-9 years |
Nutrition and Health |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
Integrable report, but not a structured database like Eurostat |
| Prevalence of overweight and obesity among boys and girls aged 7-9 years |
Nutrition and Health |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
26 Countries |
| Prevalence of overweight and obesity among boys and girls aged 7-9 years |
Nutrition and Health |
timeliness |
Strong |
1 years |
| Prevalence of anemia among women of reproductive age (15-49 years) |
Nutrition and Health |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Prevalence of anemia among women of reproductive age (15-49 years) |
Nutrition and Health |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Prevalence of anemia among women of reproductive age (15-49 years) |
Nutrition and Health |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
Outcome indicator: prevalence of anemia |
| Prevalence of anemia among women of reproductive age (15-49 years) |
Nutrition and Health |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Official source: FAOSTAT, international report |
| Prevalence of anemia among women of reproductive age (15-49 years) |
Nutrition and Health |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
FAO, globally harmonized methodologies |
| Prevalence of anemia among women of reproductive age (15-49 years) |
Nutrition and Health |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Prevalence of anemia among women of reproductive age (15-49 years) |
Nutrition and Health |
data availability |
Adequate |
Last year 2019 |
| Prevalence of anemia among women of reproductive age (15-49 years) |
Nutrition and Health |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Prevalence of anemia among women of reproductive age (15-49 years) |
Nutrition and Health |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Large FAOSTAT database, integrable with other indicators |
| Prevalence of anemia among women of reproductive age (15-49 years) |
Nutrition and Health |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
26 Countries |
| Prevalence of anemia among women of reproductive age (15-49 years) |
Nutrition and Health |
timeliness |
Weak |
>3 years |
| Prevalence of anemia among children (% of children ages 6-59 months) |
Nutrition and Health |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Prevalence of anemia among children (% of children ages 6-59 months) |
Nutrition and Health |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Prevalence of anemia among children (% of children ages 6-59 months) |
Nutrition and Health |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
Outcome indicator: prevalence of infance anemia |
| Prevalence of anemia among children (% of children ages 6-59 months) |
Nutrition and Health |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Official source: World Bank, international database |
| Prevalence of anemia among children (% of children ages 6-59 months) |
Nutrition and Health |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
WHO/UNICEF harmonized methodologies |
| Prevalence of anemia among children (% of children ages 6-59 months) |
Nutrition and Health |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Prevalence of anemia among children (% of children ages 6-59 months) |
Nutrition and Health |
data availability |
Adequate |
Last year 2019 |
| Prevalence of anemia among children (% of children ages 6-59 months) |
Nutrition and Health |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Prevalence of anemia among children (% of children ages 6-59 months) |
Nutrition and Health |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Large database integrable with other malnutrition indicators |
| Prevalence of anemia among children (% of children ages 6-59 months) |
Nutrition and Health |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Prevalence of anemia among children (% of children ages 6-59 months) |
Nutrition and Health |
timeliness |
Weak |
>3 years |
| Prevalence of underweight children |
Nutrition and Health |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Prevalence of underweight children |
Nutrition and Health |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Prevalence of underweight children |
Nutrition and Health |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
Outcome indicator: prevalence of infance underweight |
| Prevalence of underweight children |
Nutrition and Health |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Official source: World Bank, international database |
| Prevalence of underweight children |
Nutrition and Health |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
WHO/UNICEF harmonized methodologies |
| Prevalence of underweight children |
Nutrition and Health |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Prevalence of underweight children |
Nutrition and Health |
data availability |
Adequate |
Last year 2019 |
| Prevalence of underweight children |
Nutrition and Health |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Prevalence of underweight children |
Nutrition and Health |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Large database integrable with other malnutrition indicators |
| Prevalence of underweight children |
Nutrition and Health |
broad geographical coverage |
Weak |
13 EU Countries |
| Prevalence of underweight children |
Nutrition and Health |
timeliness |
Weak |
>3 years |
| Diabetes prevalence |
Nutrition and Health |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Diabetes prevalence |
Nutrition and Health |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Diabetes prevalence |
Nutrition and Health |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
Outcome indicator: prevalence of Diabete |
| Diabetes prevalence |
Nutrition and Health |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Official source: World Bank, international database |
| Diabetes prevalence |
Nutrition and Health |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
WHO/IDF harmonized methodologies |
| Diabetes prevalence |
Nutrition and Health |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Diabetes prevalence |
Nutrition and Health |
data availability |
Adequate |
Last year 2021 |
| Diabetes prevalence |
Nutrition and Health |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Diabetes prevalence |
Nutrition and Health |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Large database integrable with other health indicators |
| Diabetes prevalence |
Nutrition and Health |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Diabetes prevalence |
Nutrition and Health |
timeliness |
Weak |
>3 years |
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and educational attainment level (hlth_ehis_fv3e) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and educational attainment level (hlth_ehis_fv3e) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and educational attainment level (hlth_ehis_fv3e) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Behavioral indicator: frequency of fruit/vegetable consumption |
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and educational attainment level (hlth_ehis_fv3e) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Official source: Eurostat, EHIS database |
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and educational attainment level (hlth_ehis_fv3e) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Eurostat, harmonized methodologies |
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and educational attainment level (hlth_ehis_fv3e) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and educational attainment level (hlth_ehis_fv3e) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data availability |
Adequate |
Last year 2019 |
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and educational attainment level (hlth_ehis_fv3e) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and educational attainment level (hlth_ehis_fv3e) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
EHIS can be integrated but with a long periodicity |
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and educational attainment level (hlth_ehis_fv3e) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and educational attainment level (hlth_ehis_fv3e) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
timeliness |
Weak |
>3 years |
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and income quintile |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and income quintile |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and income quintile |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Behavioral indicator: frequency of fruit/vegetable consumption |
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and income quintile |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Official source: Eurostat, EHIS database |
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and income quintile |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Eurostat, harmonized methodologies |
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and income quintile |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and income quintile |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data availability |
Adequate |
Last year 2019 |
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and income quintile |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and income quintile |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
EHIS can be integrated but with a long periodicity |
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and income quintile |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and income quintile |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
timeliness |
Weak |
>3 years |
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and degree of urbanisation |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and degree of urbanisation |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and degree of urbanisation |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Behavioral indicator: frequency of fruit/vegetable consumption |
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and degree of urbanisation |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Official source: Eurostat, EHIS database |
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and degree of urbanisation |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Eurostat, harmonized methodologies |
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and degree of urbanisation |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and degree of urbanisation |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data availability |
Adequate |
Last year 2019 |
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and degree of urbanisation |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and degree of urbanisation |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
EHIS can be integrated but with a long periodicity |
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and degree of urbanisation |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and degree of urbanisation |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
timeliness |
Weak |
>3 years |
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and body mass index |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and body mass index |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and body mass index |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Behavioral indicator: frequency of fruit/vegetable consumption |
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and body mass index |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Official source: Eurostat, EHIS database |
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and body mass index |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Eurostat, harmonized methodologies |
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and body mass index |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and body mass index |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data availability |
Adequate |
Last year 2019 |
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and body mass index |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and body mass index |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
EHIS can be integrated but with a long periodicity |
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and body mass index |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and body mass index |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
timeliness |
Weak |
>3 years |
| Persons eating fruit, vegetables or salad by educational attainment level, risk of poverty threshold, most frequent activity status and sex |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Persons eating fruit, vegetables or salad by educational attainment level, risk of poverty threshold, most frequent activity status and sex |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Persons eating fruit, vegetables or salad by educational attainment level, risk of poverty threshold, most frequent activity status and sex |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Behavioral indicator: frequency of fruit/vegetable consumption |
| Persons eating fruit, vegetables or salad by educational attainment level, risk of poverty threshold, most frequent activity status and sex |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Official source: Eurostat, EU-SILC dataset |
| Persons eating fruit, vegetables or salad by educational attainment level, risk of poverty threshold, most frequent activity status and sex |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Eurostat, harmonized methodologies |
| Persons eating fruit, vegetables or salad by educational attainment level, risk of poverty threshold, most frequent activity status and sex |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Persons eating fruit, vegetables or salad by educational attainment level, risk of poverty threshold, most frequent activity status and sex |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2022 |
| Persons eating fruit, vegetables or salad by educational attainment level, risk of poverty threshold, most frequent activity status and sex |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Persons eating fruit, vegetables or salad by educational attainment level, risk of poverty threshold, most frequent activity status and sex |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
EU-SILC can be integrated but with a long periodicity |
| Persons eating fruit, vegetables or salad by educational attainment level, risk of poverty threshold, most frequent activity status and sex |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
26 Countries |
| Persons eating fruit, vegetables or salad by educational attainment level, risk of poverty threshold, most frequent activity status and sex |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
timeliness |
Adequate |
3 years |
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and degree of urbanisation |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and degree of urbanisation |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and degree of urbanisation |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Behavioral indicator: frequency of fruit/vegetable consumption |
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and degree of urbanisation |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Official source: Eurostat, EHIS database |
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and degree of urbanisation |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Eurostat, harmonized methodologies |
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and degree of urbanisation |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and degree of urbanisation |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data availability |
Adequate |
Last year 2019 |
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and degree of urbanisation |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and degree of urbanisation |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
EHIS can be integrated but with a long periodicity |
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and degree of urbanisation |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and degree of urbanisation |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
timeliness |
Weak |
>3 years |
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Behavioral indicator: frequency of fruit/vegetable consumption |
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Official source: Eurostat, EHIS database |
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Eurostat, harmonized methodologies |
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data availability |
Adequate |
Last year 2019 |
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
EHIS can be integrated but with a long periodicity |
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
timeliness |
Weak |
>3 years |
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and income quintile |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and income quintile |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and income quintile |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Behavioral indicator: frequency of fruit/vegetable consumption |
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and income quintile |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Official source: Eurostat, EHIS database |
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and income quintile |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Eurostat, harmonized methodologies |
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and income quintile |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and income quintile |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data availability |
Adequate |
Last year 2019 |
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and income quintile |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and income quintile |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
EHIS can be integrated but with a long periodicity |
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and income quintile |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and income quintile |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
timeliness |
Weak |
>3 years |
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and body mass index |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and body mass index |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and body mass index |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Behavioral indicator: frequency of fruit/vegetable consumption |
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and body mass index |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Official source: Eurostat, EHIS database |
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and body mass index |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Eurostat, harmonized methodologies |
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and body mass index |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and body mass index |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data availability |
Adequate |
Last year 2019 |
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and body mass index |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and body mass index |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
EHIS can be integrated but with a long periodicity |
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and body mass index |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption by sex, age and body mass index |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
timeliness |
Weak |
>3 years |
| Frequency of drinking sugar-sweetened soft drinks by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Frequency of drinking sugar-sweetened soft drinks by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Frequency of drinking sugar-sweetened soft drinks by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Behavioral indicator: frequency of consumption of sugary drinks |
| Frequency of drinking sugar-sweetened soft drinks by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Official source: Eurostat, EHIS database |
| Frequency of drinking sugar-sweetened soft drinks by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Eurostat, harmonized methodologies |
| Frequency of drinking sugar-sweetened soft drinks by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Frequency of drinking sugar-sweetened soft drinks by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data availability |
Adequate |
Last year 2019 |
| Frequency of drinking sugar-sweetened soft drinks by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Frequency of drinking sugar-sweetened soft drinks by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
EHIS can be integrated but with a long periodicity |
| Frequency of drinking sugar-sweetened soft drinks by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
26 Countries |
| Frequency of drinking sugar-sweetened soft drinks by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
timeliness |
Weak |
>3 years |
| Frequency of drinking sugar-sweetened soft drinks by sex, age and body mass index |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Frequency of drinking sugar-sweetened soft drinks by sex, age and body mass index |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Frequency of drinking sugar-sweetened soft drinks by sex, age and body mass index |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Behavioral indicator: frequency of consumption of sugary drinks |
| Frequency of drinking sugar-sweetened soft drinks by sex, age and body mass index |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Official source: Eurostat, EHIS database |
| Frequency of drinking sugar-sweetened soft drinks by sex, age and body mass index |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Eurostat, harmonized methodologies |
| Frequency of drinking sugar-sweetened soft drinks by sex, age and body mass index |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Frequency of drinking sugar-sweetened soft drinks by sex, age and body mass index |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data availability |
Adequate |
Last year 2019 |
| Frequency of drinking sugar-sweetened soft drinks by sex, age and body mass index |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Frequency of drinking sugar-sweetened soft drinks by sex, age and body mass index |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
EHIS can be integrated but with a long periodicity |
| Frequency of drinking sugar-sweetened soft drinks by sex, age and body mass index |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
26 Countries |
| Frequency of drinking sugar-sweetened soft drinks by sex, age and body mass index |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
timeliness |
Weak |
>3 years |
| Frequency of drinking pure fruit or vegetable juice by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Frequency of drinking pure fruit or vegetable juice by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Frequency of drinking pure fruit or vegetable juice by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Behavioral indicator: frequency of consumption of fruit juices |
| Frequency of drinking pure fruit or vegetable juice by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Official source: Eurostat, EHIS database |
| Frequency of drinking pure fruit or vegetable juice by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Eurostat, harmonized methodologies |
| Frequency of drinking pure fruit or vegetable juice by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Frequency of drinking pure fruit or vegetable juice by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data availability |
Adequate |
Last year 2020 |
| Frequency of drinking pure fruit or vegetable juice by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Frequency of drinking pure fruit or vegetable juice by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
EHIS can be integrated but with a long periodicity |
| Frequency of drinking pure fruit or vegetable juice by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
26 Countries |
| Frequency of drinking pure fruit or vegetable juice by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
timeliness |
Weak |
>3 years |
| Daily consumption of meat and meat products (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Daily consumption of meat and meat products (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Daily consumption of meat and meat products (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Behavioral indicator: frequency of consumption of meat |
| Daily consumption of meat and meat products (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
decision-usefulness |
Adequate |
Official source: Source: EFSA, but data come from heterogeneous national surveys |
| Daily consumption of meat and meat products (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Adequate |
FoodEx2 available, but data collection is not uniform across countries |
| Daily consumption of meat and meat products (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Daily consumption of meat and meat products (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data availability |
Weak |
Latest year: 2007–2019 depending on the country; lag up to 18 years |
| Daily consumption of meat and meat products (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Daily consumption of meat and meat products (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
Database can be integrated, but data are heterogeneous |
| Daily consumption of meat and meat products (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
23 Countries (Not fully covered) |
| Daily consumption of meat and meat products (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
timeliness |
Weak |
>3 years |
| Daily consumption of legumes (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Daily consumption of legumes (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Daily consumption of legumes (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Behavioral indicator: frequency of consumption of legume |
| Daily consumption of legumes (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
decision-usefulness |
Adequate |
Official source: Source: EFSA, but data come from heterogeneous national surveys |
| Daily consumption of legumes (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Adequate |
FoodEx2 available, but data collection is not uniform across countries |
| Daily consumption of legumes (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Daily consumption of legumes (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data availability |
Weak |
Latest year: 2007–2019 depending on the country; lag up to 18 years |
| Daily consumption of legumes (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Daily consumption of legumes (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
Database can be integrated, but data are heterogeneous |
| Daily consumption of legumes (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
23 Countries (Not fully covered) |
| Daily consumption of legumes (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
timeliness |
Weak |
>3 years |
| Daily consumption of milk and dairy products (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Daily consumption of milk and dairy products (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Daily consumption of milk and dairy products (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Behavioral indicator: frequency of consumption ofmilk and milk products |
| Daily consumption of milk and dairy products (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
decision-usefulness |
Adequate |
Official source: Source: EFSA, but data come from heterogeneous national surveys |
| Daily consumption of milk and dairy products (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Adequate |
FoodEx2 available, but data collection is not uniform across countries |
| Daily consumption of milk and dairy products (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Daily consumption of milk and dairy products (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data availability |
Weak |
Latest year: 2007–2019 depending on the country; lag up to 18 years |
| Daily consumption of milk and dairy products (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Daily consumption of milk and dairy products (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
Database can be integrated, but data are heterogeneous |
| Daily consumption of milk and dairy products (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
23 Countries (Not fully covered) |
| Daily consumption of milk and dairy products (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
timeliness |
Weak |
>3 years |
| Daily consumption of soft drinks (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Daily consumption of soft drinks (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Daily consumption of soft drinks (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Behavioral indicator: frequency of consumption of soft drink |
| Daily consumption of soft drinks (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
decision-usefulness |
Adequate |
Official source: Source: EFSA, but data come from heterogeneous national surveys |
| Daily consumption of soft drinks (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Adequate |
FoodEx2 available, but data collection is not uniform across countries |
| Daily consumption of soft drinks (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Daily consumption of soft drinks (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data availability |
Weak |
Latest year: 2007–2019 depending on the country; lag up to 18 years |
| Daily consumption of soft drinks (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Daily consumption of soft drinks (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
Database can be integrated, but data are heterogeneous |
| Daily consumption of soft drinks (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
23 Countries (Not fully covered) |
| Daily consumption of soft drinks (different population groups selectable) |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
timeliness |
Weak |
>3 years |
| Contribution of meat products to daily energy intake |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Contribution of meat products to daily energy intake |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Contribution of meat products to daily energy intake |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Behavioral indicator: Energy contribution from meat |
| Contribution of meat products to daily energy intake |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
decision-usefulness |
Adequate |
Evidence from a multi-country peer-reviewed study; useful for policy but less immediately 'official' compared to harmonized statistical databases (Eurostat/FAO) |
| Contribution of meat products to daily energy intake |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Adequate |
Based on heterogeneous national surveys |
| Contribution of meat products to daily energy intake |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Contribution of meat products to daily energy intake |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data availability |
Weak |
Cross-sectional; most recent years vary by country (e.g., 2005–2008 DK, 2003–2004 CZ, 2005–2006 IT, 2006–2007 FR), therefore high lag |
| Contribution of meat products to daily energy intake |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Contribution of meat products to daily energy intake |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
Data can only be partially integrated, It is a single study but not a structured database; useful in combination with EFSA/Eurostat databases |
| Contribution of meat products to daily energy intake |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
broad geographical coverage |
Weak |
4 countries (Denmark, Czech Republic, Italy, France) <15 threshold 'adequate |
| Contribution of meat products to daily energy intake |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
timeliness |
Weak |
>3 years |
| Contribution of ruminant meat products to daily energy intake |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Contribution of ruminant meat products to daily energy intake |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Contribution of ruminant meat products to daily energy intake |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Behavioral indicator: Energy contribution from meat |
| Contribution of ruminant meat products to daily energy intake |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
decision-usefulness |
Adequate |
Evidence from a multi-country peer-reviewed study; useful for policy but less immediately 'official' compared to harmonized statistical databases (Eurostat/FAO) |
| Contribution of ruminant meat products to daily energy intake |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Adequate |
Academic study, not a standardized international database; comparability is good but not harmonized like Eurostat/FAOSTAT/WHO |
| Contribution of ruminant meat products to daily energy intake |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Contribution of ruminant meat products to daily energy intake |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data availability |
Weak |
Cross-sectional; most recent years vary by country (e.g., 2005–2008 DK, 2003–2004 CZ, 2005–2006 IT, 2006–2007 FR), therefore high lag |
| Contribution of ruminant meat products to daily energy intake |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Contribution of ruminant meat products to daily energy intake |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
Data can only be partially integrated, It is a single study but not a structured database; useful in combination with EFSA/Eurostat databases |
| Contribution of ruminant meat products to daily energy intake |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
broad geographical coverage |
Weak |
4 countries (Denmark, Czech Republic, Italy, France) <15 threshold 'adequate |
| Contribution of ruminant meat products to daily energy intake |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
timeliness |
Weak |
>3 years |
| Consumption of iodized salt |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Consumption of iodized salt |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
goal alignment |
Weak |
|
| Consumption of iodized salt |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
Behavioral indicator: consumption of iodized sal, not clear indication to transition |
| Consumption of iodized salt |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Source = Official database (World Bank) |
| Consumption of iodized salt |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Based on international standards (methodologically defined surveys) |
| Consumption of iodized salt |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Consumption of iodized salt |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data availability |
Weak |
Notes indicate 'DATA GAP!' and very old data → not recent |
| Consumption of iodized salt |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible datasets; easy to obtain |
| Consumption of iodized salt |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
Official database, but data are heterogeneous across countries → partial interoperability |
| Consumption of iodized salt |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
broad geographical coverage |
Weak |
Coverage < 15 countries (only 3–4) |
| Consumption of iodized salt |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
timeliness |
Weak |
Latest data > 10 years ago, irregular frequency |
| Daily concumption of fresh fruit among 6-9-year-olds |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Daily concumption of fresh fruit among 6-9-year-olds |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
goal alignment |
Adequate |
|
| Daily concumption of fresh fruit among 6-9-year-olds |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Behavioral indicator: Fresh fruit consumption |
| Daily concumption of fresh fruit among 6-9-year-olds |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Source = Official WHO report (COSI), useful for policy and communication |
| Daily concumption of fresh fruit among 6-9-year-olds |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Harmonized protocols for data collection BY WHO |
| Daily concumption of fresh fruit among 6-9-year-olds |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Daily concumption of fresh fruit among 6-9-year-olds |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data availability |
Adequate |
Recent data (2018–2020) available |
| Daily concumption of fresh fruit among 6-9-year-olds |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Public and direct link to the WHO report |
| Daily concumption of fresh fruit among 6-9-year-olds |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data interoperability |
Strong |
WHO COSI is a database that can be integrated with other health/nutrition indicators |
| Daily concumption of fresh fruit among 6-9-year-olds |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
Coverage ≈ 18 countries (<26 but >15) |
| Daily concumption of fresh fruit among 6-9-year-olds |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
timeliness |
Adequate |
3 years |
| Daily concumption of vegetables among 6-9-year-olds |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Daily concumption of vegetables among 6-9-year-olds |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Daily concumption of vegetables among 6-9-year-olds |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Behavioral indicator: Vegetable consumption |
| Daily concumption of vegetables among 6-9-year-olds |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Source = Official WHO report (COSI), useful for policy and communication |
| Daily concumption of vegetables among 6-9-year-olds |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Harmonized protocols for data collection BY WHO |
| Daily concumption of vegetables among 6-9-year-olds |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Daily concumption of vegetables among 6-9-year-olds |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data availability |
Adequate |
Recent data (2018–2020) available |
| Daily concumption of vegetables among 6-9-year-olds |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Public and direct link to the WHO report |
| Daily concumption of vegetables among 6-9-year-olds |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data interoperability |
Strong |
WHO COSI is a database that can be integrated with other health/nutrition indicators |
| Daily concumption of vegetables among 6-9-year-olds |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
Coverage ≈ 18 countries (<26 but >15) |
| Daily concumption of vegetables among 6-9-year-olds |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
timeliness |
Adequate |
3 years |
| Frequent consumption of soft drinks (>3 days/week) among 6-9-year-olds |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Frequent consumption of soft drinks (>3 days/week) among 6-9-year-olds |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Frequent consumption of soft drinks (>3 days/week) among 6-9-year-olds |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Behavioral indicator: Soft drink consumption |
| Frequent consumption of soft drinks (>3 days/week) among 6-9-year-olds |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Source = Official WHO report (COSI), useful for policy and communication |
| Frequent consumption of soft drinks (>3 days/week) among 6-9-year-olds |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Harmonized protocols for data collection BY WHO |
| Frequent consumption of soft drinks (>3 days/week) among 6-9-year-olds |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Strongly supported by scientific literature; widely validated. |
| Frequent consumption of soft drinks (>3 days/week) among 6-9-year-olds |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data availability |
Adequate |
Recent data (2018–2020) available |
| Frequent consumption of soft drinks (>3 days/week) among 6-9-year-olds |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Public and direct link to the WHO report |
| Frequent consumption of soft drinks (>3 days/week) among 6-9-year-olds |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
data interoperability |
Strong |
WHO COSI is a database that can be integrated with other health/nutrition indicators |
| Frequent consumption of soft drinks (>3 days/week) among 6-9-year-olds |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
Coverage ≈ 19 countries |
| Frequent consumption of soft drinks (>3 days/week) among 6-9-year-olds |
Dietary consumption patterns/Food Intake |
timeliness |
Adequate |
3 years |
| Nitrate in groundwater |
Food quality and safety |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Nitrate in groundwater |
Food quality and safety |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Nitrate in groundwater |
Food quality and safety |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Clear directionality; sensitive to nutrient management changes. |
| Nitrate in groundwater |
Food quality and safety |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Actionable for CAP and groundwater protection policies. |
| Nitrate in groundwater |
Food quality and safety |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
SDG indicator with harmonized definitions/protocols. |
| Nitrate in groundwater |
Food quality and safety |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Measured monitoring data; strong methodological grounding. |
| Nitrate in groundwater |
Food quality and safety |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2023 |
| Nitrate in groundwater |
Food quality and safety |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Available through SDG reporting portals. |
| Nitrate in groundwater |
Food quality and safety |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Standard units enable linkage with agri pressure indicators. |
| Nitrate in groundwater |
Food quality and safety |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 (EU MS) via SDG reporting (may vary). |
| Nitrate in groundwater |
Food quality and safety |
timeliness |
Adequate |
2–3 years |
| Percentage of population using safely managed drinking water services |
Food quality and safety |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Percentage of population using safely managed drinking water services |
Food quality and safety |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Percentage of population using safely managed drinking water services |
Food quality and safety |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Direct progress signal; clear directionality (higher coverage = improvement). |
| Percentage of population using safely managed drinking water services |
Food quality and safety |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Actionable for investment targeting and inequality monitoring. |
| Percentage of population using safely managed drinking water services |
Food quality and safety |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
WHO/UNICEF JMP standardized ladders; high comparability. |
| Percentage of population using safely managed drinking water services |
Food quality and safety |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Established methodology with expert validation. |
| Percentage of population using safely managed drinking water services |
Food quality and safety |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2023 |
| Percentage of population using safely managed drinking water services |
Food quality and safety |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible via JMP/SDG portals. |
| Percentage of population using safely managed drinking water services |
Food quality and safety |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Standard categories enable linkage with health/environment datasets. |
| Percentage of population using safely managed drinking water services |
Food quality and safety |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Percentage of population using safely managed drinking water services |
Food quality and safety |
timeliness |
Adequate |
Latest 2–3 years |
| Percentage of population using at least basic drinking water services |
Food quality and safety |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Percentage of population using at least basic drinking water services |
Food quality and safety |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Percentage of population using at least basic drinking water services |
Food quality and safety |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Direct progress signal; clear directionality (higher coverage = improvement). |
| Percentage of population using at least basic drinking water services |
Food quality and safety |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Actionable for investment targeting and inequality monitoring. |
| Percentage of population using at least basic drinking water services |
Food quality and safety |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
WHO/UNICEF JMP standardized ladders; high comparability. |
| Percentage of population using at least basic drinking water services |
Food quality and safety |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Established methodology with expert validation. |
| Percentage of population using at least basic drinking water services |
Food quality and safety |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2023 |
| Percentage of population using at least basic drinking water services |
Food quality and safety |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible via JMP/SDG portals. |
| Percentage of population using at least basic drinking water services |
Food quality and safety |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Standard categories enable linkage with health/environment datasets. |
| Percentage of population using at least basic drinking water services |
Food quality and safety |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Percentage of population using at least basic drinking water services |
Food quality and safety |
timeliness |
Adequate |
2–3 years |
| Percentage of population using safely managed sanitation services |
Food quality and safety |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Percentage of population using safely managed sanitation services |
Food quality and safety |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Percentage of population using safely managed sanitation services |
Food quality and safety |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Direct progress signal; clear directionality (higher coverage = improvement). |
| Percentage of population using safely managed sanitation services |
Food quality and safety |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Actionable for investment targeting and inequality monitoring. |
| Percentage of population using safely managed sanitation services |
Food quality and safety |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
WHO/UNICEF JMP standardized ladders; high comparability. |
| Percentage of population using safely managed sanitation services |
Food quality and safety |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Established methodology with expert validation. |
| Percentage of population using safely managed sanitation services |
Food quality and safety |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2023 |
| Percentage of population using safely managed sanitation services |
Food quality and safety |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible via JMP/SDG portals. |
| Percentage of population using safely managed sanitation services |
Food quality and safety |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Standard categories enable linkage with health/environment datasets. |
| Percentage of population using safely managed sanitation services |
Food quality and safety |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Percentage of population using safely managed sanitation services |
Food quality and safety |
timeliness |
Adequate |
2–3 years |
| Percentage of population using at least basic sanitation services |
Food quality and safety |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Percentage of population using at least basic sanitation services |
Food quality and safety |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Percentage of population using at least basic sanitation services |
Food quality and safety |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Direct progress signal; clear directionality (higher coverage = improvement). |
| Percentage of population using at least basic sanitation services |
Food quality and safety |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Actionable for investment targeting and inequality monitoring. |
| Percentage of population using at least basic sanitation services |
Food quality and safety |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
WHO/UNICEF JMP standardized ladders; high comparability. |
| Percentage of population using at least basic sanitation services |
Food quality and safety |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Established methodology with expert validation. |
| Percentage of population using at least basic sanitation services |
Food quality and safety |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2023 |
| Percentage of population using at least basic sanitation services |
Food quality and safety |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible via JMP/SDG portals. |
| Percentage of population using at least basic sanitation services |
Food quality and safety |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Standard categories enable linkage with health/environment datasets. |
| Percentage of population using at least basic sanitation services |
Food quality and safety |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Percentage of population using at least basic sanitation services |
Food quality and safety |
timeliness |
Adequate |
2–3 years |
| Prevalence of undernourishment (3-year average) |
Nutrition and Health |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Prevalence of undernourishment (3-year average) |
Nutrition and Health |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Prevalence of undernourishment (3-year average) |
Nutrition and Health |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
Outcome indicator (prevalence of undernourishment) → requires complementary indicators for interpretation of transition |
| Prevalence of undernourishment (3-year average) |
Nutrition and Health |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Source = Official FAOSTAT database, widely used for policy |
| Prevalence of undernourishment (3-year average) |
Nutrition and Health |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Based on FAO standards and harmonized methodologies |
| Prevalence of undernourishment (3-year average) |
Nutrition and Health |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
FAO indicators validated and documented, supported by scientific literature |
| Prevalence of undernourishment (3-year average) |
Nutrition and Health |
data availability |
Strong |
Recent data available (2021–2023 |
| Prevalence of undernourishment (3-year average) |
Nutrition and Health |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Public and direct link to the FAOSTAT database |
| Prevalence of undernourishment (3-year average) |
Nutrition and Health |
data interoperability |
Strong |
FAOSTAT database can be integrated with other global datasets |
| Prevalence of undernourishment (3-year average) |
Nutrition and Health |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
26 Countries |
| Prevalence of undernourishment (3-year average) |
Nutrition and Health |
timeliness |
Strong |
1 years |
| Percentage of children under 5 years of age who are stunted (modelled estimates) |
Nutrition and Health |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Percentage of children under 5 years of age who are stunted (modelled estimates) |
Nutrition and Health |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Percentage of children under 5 years of age who are stunted (modelled estimates) |
Nutrition and Health |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
Outcome indicator (prevalence of stunting) → requires complementary indicators for interpretation of transition |
| Percentage of children under 5 years of age who are stunted (modelled estimates) |
Nutrition and Health |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Source = Official FAOSTAT database, widely used for policy |
| Percentage of children under 5 years of age who are stunted (modelled estimates) |
Nutrition and Health |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Based on FAO standards and harmonized methodologies |
| Percentage of children under 5 years of age who are stunted (modelled estimates) |
Nutrition and Health |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
FAO indicators validated and documented, supported by scientific literature |
| Percentage of children under 5 years of age who are stunted (modelled estimates) |
Nutrition and Health |
data availability |
Strong |
Recent data available 2022 |
| Percentage of children under 5 years of age who are stunted (modelled estimates) |
Nutrition and Health |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Public and direct link to the FAOSTAT database |
| Percentage of children under 5 years of age who are stunted (modelled estimates) |
Nutrition and Health |
data interoperability |
Strong |
FAOSTAT database can be integrated with other global datasets |
| Percentage of children under 5 years of age who are stunted (modelled estimates) |
Nutrition and Health |
broad geographical coverage |
Weak |
13 Countries |
| Percentage of children under 5 years of age who are stunted (modelled estimates) |
Nutrition and Health |
timeliness |
Strong |
1 years |
| Prevalence of severe food insecurity in the total population (3-year average) |
Food access and enabling factors |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Prevalence of severe food insecurity in the total population (3-year average) |
Food access and enabling factors |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Prevalence of severe food insecurity in the total population (3-year average) |
Food access and enabling factors |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Strong transition signal; lower prevalence = improvement. |
| Prevalence of severe food insecurity in the total population (3-year average) |
Food access and enabling factors |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly decision-useful for social protection and resilience policy. |
| Prevalence of severe food insecurity in the total population (3-year average) |
Food access and enabling factors |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
FAO FIES enables cross-country comparability. |
| Prevalence of severe food insecurity in the total population (3-year average) |
Food access and enabling factors |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Scientifically validated measurement approach. |
| Prevalence of severe food insecurity in the total population (3-year average) |
Food access and enabling factors |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2023 |
| Prevalence of severe food insecurity in the total population (3-year average) |
Food access and enabling factors |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Accessible via FAO/SDG databases. |
| Prevalence of severe food insecurity in the total population (3-year average) |
Food access and enabling factors |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Interoperable with socioeconomic and shocks indicators. |
| Prevalence of severe food insecurity in the total population (3-year average) |
Food access and enabling factors |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Prevalence of severe food insecurity in the total population (3-year average) |
Food access and enabling factors |
timeliness |
Adequate |
2–3 years |
| Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the total population (3-year average) |
Food access and enabling factors |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the total population (3-year average) |
Food access and enabling factors |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the total population (3-year average) |
Food access and enabling factors |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Strong transition signal; lower prevalence = improvement. |
| Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the total population (3-year average) |
Food access and enabling factors |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly decision-useful for social protection and resilience policy. |
| Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the total population (3-year average) |
Food access and enabling factors |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
FAO FIES enables cross-country comparability. |
| Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the total population (3-year average) |
Food access and enabling factors |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Scientifically validated measurement approach. |
| Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the total population (3-year average) |
Food access and enabling factors |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2023 |
| Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the total population (3-year average) |
Food access and enabling factors |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Accessible via FAO/SDG databases. |
| Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the total population (3-year average) |
Food access and enabling factors |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Interoperable with socioeconomic and shocks indicators. |
| Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the total population (3-year average) |
Food access and enabling factors |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the total population (3-year average) |
Food access and enabling factors |
timeliness |
Adequate |
2–3 years |
| Gross domestic product per capita, PPP, (constant 2017 international $) |
Food access and enabling factors |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Gross domestic product per capita, PPP, (constant 2017 international $) |
Food access and enabling factors |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Gross domestic product per capita, PPP, (constant 2017 international $) |
Food access and enabling factors |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
Clear directionality for trend monitoring (some are inputs). |
| Gross domestic product per capita, PPP, (constant 2017 international $) |
Food access and enabling factors |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Decision-useful for nutrition, stability, resilience and supply dynamics. |
| Gross domestic product per capita, PPP, (constant 2017 international $) |
Food access and enabling factors |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
FAO/official standardized methodologies; high comparability. |
| Gross domestic product per capita, PPP, (constant 2017 international $) |
Food access and enabling factors |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Well-documented and widely validated in scientific use. |
| Gross domestic product per capita, PPP, (constant 2017 international $) |
Food access and enabling factors |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2022/2023 |
| Gross domestic product per capita, PPP, (constant 2017 international $) |
Food access and enabling factors |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible via official portals (e.g., FAOSTAT). |
| Gross domestic product per capita, PPP, (constant 2017 international $) |
Food access and enabling factors |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Interoperable via standard country codes and consistent units. |
| Gross domestic product per capita, PPP, (constant 2017 international $) |
Food access and enabling factors |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Gross domestic product per capita, PPP, (constant 2017 international $) |
Food access and enabling factors |
timeliness |
Adequate |
2–3 years |
| Rail lines density (total route in km per 100 square km of land area) |
Food access and enabling factors |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Rail lines density (total route in km per 100 square km of land area) |
Food access and enabling factors |
goal alignment |
Adequate |
|
| Rail lines density (total route in km per 100 square km of land area) |
Food access and enabling factors |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
Indirect transition signal; context dependent. |
| Rail lines density (total route in km per 100 square km of land area) |
Food access and enabling factors |
decision-usefulness |
Adequate |
Useful for logistics and resilience planning. |
| Rail lines density (total route in km per 100 square km of land area) |
Food access and enabling factors |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
Generally standardized transport stats; some gaps. |
| Rail lines density (total route in km per 100 square km of land area) |
Food access and enabling factors |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Official statistics; validation depends on source. |
| Rail lines density (total route in km per 100 square km of land area) |
Food access and enabling factors |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2023 |
| Rail lines density (total route in km per 100 square km of land area) |
Food access and enabling factors |
data accessibility |
Adequate |
Often public; depends on provider. |
| Rail lines density (total route in km per 100 square km of land area) |
Food access and enabling factors |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Interoperable with transport/emissions datasets. |
| Rail lines density (total route in km per 100 square km of land area) |
Food access and enabling factors |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Rail lines density (total route in km per 100 square km of land area) |
Food access and enabling factors |
timeliness |
Strong |
1 years |
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of food security |
Food access and enabling factors |
integration on food system framework |
Weak |
|
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of food security |
Food access and enabling factors |
goal alignment |
Adequate |
|
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of food security |
Food access and enabling factors |
transition monitoring |
Weak |
Directionality depends on undefined benchmarks; weak transition signal. |
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of food security |
Food access and enabling factors |
decision-usefulness |
Weak |
Hard to act on without agreed method; low communicability. |
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of food security |
Food access and enabling factors |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Weak |
No international standard definitions; poor comparability. |
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of food security |
Food access and enabling factors |
scientific rigor and validation |
Weak |
Limited scientific validation as a standardized metric. |
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of food security |
Food access and enabling factors |
data availability |
Strong |
2020-2022 |
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of food security |
Food access and enabling factors |
data accessibility |
Weak |
Access conditions unclear; not publicly consolidated. |
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of food security |
Food access and enabling factors |
data interoperability |
Weak |
Low interoperability due to missing standards/mappings. |
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of food security |
Food access and enabling factors |
broad geographical coverage |
Weak |
<27 (no consistent EU-wide reporting). |
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of food security |
Food access and enabling factors |
timeliness |
Weak |
>3 years / irregular. |
| Average dietary energy supply adequacy (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Average dietary energy supply adequacy (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Average dietary energy supply adequacy (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Clear directionality for trend monitoring (some are inputs). |
| Average dietary energy supply adequacy (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Decision-useful for nutrition, stability, resilience and supply dynamics. |
| Average dietary energy supply adequacy (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
FAO/official standardized methodologies; high comparability. |
| Average dietary energy supply adequacy (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Well-documented and widely validated in scientific use. |
| Average dietary energy supply adequacy (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
data availability |
Strong |
2021-2023 |
| Average dietary energy supply adequacy (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible via official portals (e.g., FAOSTAT). |
| Average dietary energy supply adequacy (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Interoperable via standard country codes and consistent units. |
| Average dietary energy supply adequacy (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Average dietary energy supply adequacy (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
timeliness |
Adequate |
2-3 years |
| Dietary energy supply used in the estimation of prevalence of undernourishment |
Food Availability |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Dietary energy supply used in the estimation of prevalence of undernourishment |
Food Availability |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Dietary energy supply used in the estimation of prevalence of undernourishment |
Food Availability |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
Clear directionality for trend monitoring (some are inputs). |
| Dietary energy supply used in the estimation of prevalence of undernourishment |
Food Availability |
decision-usefulness |
Adequate |
Decision-useful for nutrition, stability, resilience and supply dynamics. |
| Dietary energy supply used in the estimation of prevalence of undernourishment |
Food Availability |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
FAO/official standardized methodologies; high comparability. |
| Dietary energy supply used in the estimation of prevalence of undernourishment |
Food Availability |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Well-documented and widely validated in scientific use. |
| Dietary energy supply used in the estimation of prevalence of undernourishment |
Food Availability |
data availability |
Strong |
2023 |
| Dietary energy supply used in the estimation of prevalence of undernourishment |
Food Availability |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible via official portals (e.g., FAOSTAT). |
| Dietary energy supply used in the estimation of prevalence of undernourishment |
Food Availability |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Interoperable via standard country codes and consistent units. |
| Dietary energy supply used in the estimation of prevalence of undernourishment |
Food Availability |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Dietary energy supply used in the estimation of prevalence of undernourishment |
Food Availability |
timeliness |
Adequate |
2-3 years |
| Dietary energy supply used in the estimation of prevalence of undernourishment (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Dietary energy supply used in the estimation of prevalence of undernourishment (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Dietary energy supply used in the estimation of prevalence of undernourishment (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Clear directionality for trend monitoring (some are inputs). |
| Dietary energy supply used in the estimation of prevalence of undernourishment (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Decision-useful for nutrition, stability, resilience and supply dynamics. |
| Dietary energy supply used in the estimation of prevalence of undernourishment (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
FAO/official standardized methodologies; high comparability. |
| Dietary energy supply used in the estimation of prevalence of undernourishment (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Well-documented and widely validated in scientific use. |
| Dietary energy supply used in the estimation of prevalence of undernourishment (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
data availability |
Strong |
2021-2023 |
| Dietary energy supply used in the estimation of prevalence of undernourishment (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible via official portals (e.g., FAOSTAT). |
| Dietary energy supply used in the estimation of prevalence of undernourishment (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Interoperable via standard country codes and consistent units. |
| Dietary energy supply used in the estimation of prevalence of undernourishment (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Dietary energy supply used in the estimation of prevalence of undernourishment (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
timeliness |
Adequate |
2-3 years |
| Average protein supply (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Average protein supply (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Average protein supply (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Clear directionality for trend monitoring (some are inputs). |
| Average protein supply (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Decision-useful for nutrition, stability, resilience and supply dynamics. |
| Average protein supply (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
FAO/official standardized methodologies; high comparability. |
| Average protein supply (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Well-documented and widely validated in scientific use. |
| Average protein supply (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
data availability |
Strong |
2020-2022 |
| Average protein supply (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible via official portals (e.g., FAOSTAT). |
| Average protein supply (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Interoperable via standard country codes and consistent units. |
| Average protein supply (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Average protein supply (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
timeliness |
Adequate |
2-3 years |
| Average supply of protein of animal origin (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Average supply of protein of animal origin (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Average supply of protein of animal origin (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Clear directionality for trend monitoring (some are inputs). |
| Average supply of protein of animal origin (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Decision-useful for nutrition, stability, resilience and supply dynamics. |
| Average supply of protein of animal origin (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
FAO/official standardized methodologies; high comparability. |
| Average supply of protein of animal origin (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Well-documented and widely validated in scientific use. |
| Average supply of protein of animal origin (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
data availability |
Strong |
2020-2022 |
| Average supply of protein of animal origin (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible via official portals (e.g., FAOSTAT). |
| Average supply of protein of animal origin (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Interoperable via standard country codes and consistent units. |
| Average supply of protein of animal origin (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Average supply of protein of animal origin (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
timeliness |
Adequate |
2-3 years |
| Average fat supply (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Average fat supply (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Average fat supply (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Clear directionality for trend monitoring (some are inputs). |
| Average fat supply (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Decision-useful for nutrition, stability, resilience and supply dynamics. |
| Average fat supply (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
FAO/official standardized methodologies; high comparability. |
| Average fat supply (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Well-documented and widely validated in scientific use. |
| Average fat supply (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
data availability |
Strong |
2020-2022 |
| Average fat supply (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible via official portals (e.g., FAOSTAT). |
| Average fat supply (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Interoperable via standard country codes and consistent units. |
| Average fat supply (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Average fat supply (3-year average) |
Food Availability |
timeliness |
Adequate |
2-3 years |
| Productivity of large-scale food producers |
Food Availability |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Productivity of large-scale food producers |
Food Availability |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Productivity of large-scale food producers |
Food Availability |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
Moderate transition signal; sensitive to definition differences. |
| Productivity of large-scale food producers |
Food Availability |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Useful for targeting support and monitoring equity/efficiency. |
| Productivity of large-scale food producers |
Food Availability |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Adequate |
Comparability limited by varying definitions and surveys. |
| Productivity of large-scale food producers |
Food Availability |
scientific rigor and validation |
Adequate |
Survey-based methods; validation varies by country. |
| Productivity of large-scale food producers |
Food Availability |
data availability |
Adequate |
2020 |
| Productivity of large-scale food producers |
Food Availability |
data accessibility |
Adequate |
Often not fully open; may require authorization/microdata. |
| Productivity of large-scale food producers |
Food Availability |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
Limited interoperability; heterogeneous metadata/units. |
| Productivity of large-scale food producers |
Food Availability |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
< 27 countries (n varies; incomplete across MS). |
| Productivity of large-scale food producers |
Food Availability |
timeliness |
Weak |
>3 years |
| Productivity of small-scale food producers |
Food Availability |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Productivity of small-scale food producers |
Food Availability |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Productivity of small-scale food producers |
Food Availability |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
Moderate transition signal; sensitive to definition differences. |
| Productivity of small-scale food producers |
Food Availability |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Useful for targeting support and monitoring equity/efficiency. |
| Productivity of small-scale food producers |
Food Availability |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Adequate |
Comparability limited by varying definitions and surveys. |
| Productivity of small-scale food producers |
Food Availability |
scientific rigor and validation |
Adequate |
Survey-based methods; validation varies by country. |
| Productivity of small-scale food producers |
Food Availability |
data availability |
Adequate |
2020 |
| Productivity of small-scale food producers |
Food Availability |
data accessibility |
Adequate |
Often not fully open; may require authorization/microdata. |
| Productivity of small-scale food producers |
Food Availability |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
Limited interoperability; heterogeneous metadata/units. |
| Productivity of small-scale food producers |
Food Availability |
broad geographical coverage |
Adequate |
< 27 countries (n varies; incomplete across MS). |
| Productivity of small-scale food producers |
Food Availability |
timeliness |
Weak |
>3 years |
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of farm output value per hectare |
Food Availability |
integration on food system framework |
Weak |
|
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of farm output value per hectare |
Food Availability |
goal alignment |
Adequate |
|
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of farm output value per hectare |
Food Availability |
transition monitoring |
Weak |
Directionality depends on undefined benchmarks; weak transition signal. |
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of farm output value per hectare |
Food Availability |
decision-usefulness |
Weak |
Hard to act on without agreed method; low communicability. |
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of farm output value per hectare |
Food Availability |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Weak |
No international standard definitions; poor comparability. |
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of farm output value per hectare |
Food Availability |
scientific rigor and validation |
Weak |
Limited scientific validation as a standardized metric. |
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of farm output value per hectare |
Food Availability |
data availability |
Strong |
2020-2022 |
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of farm output value per hectare |
Food Availability |
data accessibility |
Weak |
Access conditions unclear; not publicly consolidated. |
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of farm output value per hectare |
Food Availability |
data interoperability |
Weak |
Low interoperability due to missing standards/mappings. |
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of farm output value per hectare |
Food Availability |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of farm output value per hectare |
Food Availability |
timeliness |
Weak |
>3 years |
| Agricultural land (% of land area) |
Food Availability |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Agricultural land (% of land area) |
Food Availability |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Agricultural land (% of land area) |
Food Availability |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
Clear directionality for trend monitoring (some are inputs). |
| Agricultural land (% of land area) |
Food Availability |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Decision-useful for nutrition, stability, resilience and supply dynamics. |
| Agricultural land (% of land area) |
Food Availability |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
FAO/official standardized methodologies; high comparability. |
| Agricultural land (% of land area) |
Food Availability |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Well-documented and widely validated in scientific use. |
| Agricultural land (% of land area) |
Food Availability |
data availability |
Strong |
2022 |
| Agricultural land (% of land area) |
Food Availability |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible via official portals (e.g., FAOSTAT). |
| Agricultural land (% of land area) |
Food Availability |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Interoperable via standard country codes and consistent units. |
| Agricultural land (% of land area) |
Food Availability |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Agricultural land (% of land area) |
Food Availability |
timeliness |
Strong |
1 years |
| Food production index |
Food Availability |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Food production index |
Food Availability |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Food production index |
Food Availability |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Clear directionality for trend monitoring (some are inputs). |
| Food production index |
Food Availability |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Decision-useful for nutrition, stability, resilience and supply dynamics. |
| Food production index |
Food Availability |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
FAO/official standardized methodologies; high comparability. |
| Food production index |
Food Availability |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Well-documented and widely validated in scientific use. |
| Food production index |
Food Availability |
data availability |
Strong |
2022 |
| Food production index |
Food Availability |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible via official portals (e.g., FAOSTAT). |
| Food production index |
Food Availability |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Interoperable via standard country codes and consistent units. |
| Food production index |
Food Availability |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Food production index |
Food Availability |
timeliness |
Adequate |
2-3 years |
| Protein supply quantity of vegetal products |
Food Availability |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Protein supply quantity of vegetal products |
Food Availability |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Protein supply quantity of vegetal products |
Food Availability |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Clear directionality for trend monitoring (some are inputs). |
| Protein supply quantity of vegetal products |
Food Availability |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Decision-useful for nutrition, stability, resilience and supply dynamics. |
| Protein supply quantity of vegetal products |
Food Availability |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
FAO/official standardized methodologies; high comparability. |
| Protein supply quantity of vegetal products |
Food Availability |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Well-documented and widely validated in scientific use. |
| Protein supply quantity of vegetal products |
Food Availability |
data availability |
Strong |
2022 |
| Protein supply quantity of vegetal products |
Food Availability |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible via official portals (e.g., FAOSTAT). |
| Protein supply quantity of vegetal products |
Food Availability |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Interoperable via standard country codes and consistent units. |
| Protein supply quantity of vegetal products |
Food Availability |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Protein supply quantity of vegetal products |
Food Availability |
timeliness |
Adequate |
2-3 years |
| Protein supply quantity of animal products |
Food Availability |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Protein supply quantity of animal products |
Food Availability |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Protein supply quantity of animal products |
Food Availability |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Clear directionality for trend monitoring (some are inputs). |
| Protein supply quantity of animal products |
Food Availability |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Decision-useful for nutrition, stability, resilience and supply dynamics. |
| Protein supply quantity of animal products |
Food Availability |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
FAO/official standardized methodologies; high comparability. |
| Protein supply quantity of animal products |
Food Availability |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Well-documented and widely validated in scientific use. |
| Protein supply quantity of animal products |
Food Availability |
data availability |
Strong |
2022 |
| Protein supply quantity of animal products |
Food Availability |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible via official portals (e.g., FAOSTAT). |
| Protein supply quantity of animal products |
Food Availability |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Interoperable via standard country codes and consistent units. |
| Protein supply quantity of animal products |
Food Availability |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Protein supply quantity of animal products |
Food Availability |
timeliness |
Adequate |
2-3 years |
| Food supply quantity by food group (e.g. selectable: Vegetables, Fruits, Meat) |
Food Availability |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Food supply quantity by food group (e.g. selectable: Vegetables, Fruits, Meat) |
Food Availability |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Food supply quantity by food group (e.g. selectable: Vegetables, Fruits, Meat) |
Food Availability |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
Clear directionality for trend monitoring (some are inputs). |
| Food supply quantity by food group (e.g. selectable: Vegetables, Fruits, Meat) |
Food Availability |
decision-usefulness |
Adequate |
Decision-useful for nutrition, stability, resilience and supply dynamics. |
| Food supply quantity by food group (e.g. selectable: Vegetables, Fruits, Meat) |
Food Availability |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
FAO/official standardized methodologies; high comparability. |
| Food supply quantity by food group (e.g. selectable: Vegetables, Fruits, Meat) |
Food Availability |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Well-documented and widely validated in scientific use. |
| Food supply quantity by food group (e.g. selectable: Vegetables, Fruits, Meat) |
Food Availability |
data availability |
Strong |
2022 |
| Food supply quantity by food group (e.g. selectable: Vegetables, Fruits, Meat) |
Food Availability |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible via official portals (e.g., FAOSTAT). |
| Food supply quantity by food group (e.g. selectable: Vegetables, Fruits, Meat) |
Food Availability |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Interoperable via standard country codes and consistent units. |
| Food supply quantity by food group (e.g. selectable: Vegetables, Fruits, Meat) |
Food Availability |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Food supply quantity by food group (e.g. selectable: Vegetables, Fruits, Meat) |
Food Availability |
timeliness |
Adequate |
2-3 years |
| Per capita food supply variability (kcal/cap/day) |
Food stability |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Per capita food supply variability (kcal/cap/day) |
Food stability |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Per capita food supply variability (kcal/cap/day) |
Food stability |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Clear directionality for trend monitoring (some are inputs). |
| Per capita food supply variability (kcal/cap/day) |
Food stability |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Decision-useful for nutrition, stability, resilience and supply dynamics. |
| Per capita food supply variability (kcal/cap/day) |
Food stability |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
FAO/official standardized methodologies; high comparability. |
| Per capita food supply variability (kcal/cap/day) |
Food stability |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Well-documented and widely validated in scientific use. |
| Per capita food supply variability (kcal/cap/day) |
Food stability |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2022/2023 |
| Per capita food supply variability (kcal/cap/day) |
Food stability |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible via official portals (e.g., FAOSTAT). |
| Per capita food supply variability (kcal/cap/day) |
Food stability |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Interoperable via standard country codes and consistent units. |
| Per capita food supply variability (kcal/cap/day) |
Food stability |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Per capita food supply variability (kcal/cap/day) |
Food stability |
timeliness |
Adequate |
2–3 years |
| Percent of arable land equipped for irrigation (3-year average) |
Food stability |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Percent of arable land equipped for irrigation (3-year average) |
Food stability |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Percent of arable land equipped for irrigation (3-year average) |
Food stability |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Clear directionality for trend monitoring (some are inputs). |
| Percent of arable land equipped for irrigation (3-year average) |
Food stability |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Decision-useful for nutrition, stability, resilience and supply dynamics. |
| Percent of arable land equipped for irrigation (3-year average) |
Food stability |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
FAO/official standardized methodologies; high comparability. |
| Percent of arable land equipped for irrigation (3-year average) |
Food stability |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Well-documented and widely validated in scientific use. |
| Percent of arable land equipped for irrigation (3-year average) |
Food stability |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2022/2023 |
| Percent of arable land equipped for irrigation (3-year average) |
Food stability |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible via official portals (e.g., FAOSTAT). |
| Percent of arable land equipped for irrigation (3-year average) |
Food stability |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Interoperable via standard country codes and consistent units. |
| Percent of arable land equipped for irrigation (3-year average) |
Food stability |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Percent of arable land equipped for irrigation (3-year average) |
Food stability |
timeliness |
Adequate |
2–3 years |
| Cereal import dependency ratio (3-year average) |
Food stability |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Cereal import dependency ratio (3-year average) |
Food stability |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Cereal import dependency ratio (3-year average) |
Food stability |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Clear directionality for trend monitoring (some are inputs). |
| Cereal import dependency ratio (3-year average) |
Food stability |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Decision-useful for nutrition, stability, resilience and supply dynamics. |
| Cereal import dependency ratio (3-year average) |
Food stability |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
FAO/official standardized methodologies; high comparability. |
| Cereal import dependency ratio (3-year average) |
Food stability |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
Well-documented and widely validated in scientific use. |
| Cereal import dependency ratio (3-year average) |
Food stability |
data availability |
Strong |
Last year 2022/2023 |
| Cereal import dependency ratio (3-year average) |
Food stability |
data accessibility |
Strong |
Publicly accessible via official portals (e.g., FAOSTAT). |
| Cereal import dependency ratio (3-year average) |
Food stability |
data interoperability |
Strong |
Interoperable via standard country codes and consistent units. |
| Cereal import dependency ratio (3-year average) |
Food stability |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
27 Countries |
| Cereal import dependency ratio (3-year average) |
Food stability |
timeliness |
Adequate |
2–3 years |
| Employment in agriculture (% of total employment) (modeled ILO estimate) |
Employment and working conditions |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Employment in agriculture (% of total employment) (modeled ILO estimate) |
Employment and working conditions |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Employment in agriculture (% of total employment) (modeled ILO estimate) |
Employment and working conditions |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
|
| Employment in agriculture (% of total employment) (modeled ILO estimate) |
Employment and working conditions |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
|
| Employment in agriculture (% of total employment) (modeled ILO estimate) |
Employment and working conditions |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
|
| Employment in agriculture (% of total employment) (modeled ILO estimate) |
Employment and working conditions |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
|
| Employment in agriculture (% of total employment) (modeled ILO estimate) |
Employment and working conditions |
data availability |
Strong |
|
| Employment in agriculture (% of total employment) (modeled ILO estimate) |
Employment and working conditions |
data accessibility |
Strong |
|
| Employment in agriculture (% of total employment) (modeled ILO estimate) |
Employment and working conditions |
data interoperability |
Strong |
|
| Employment in agriculture (% of total employment) (modeled ILO estimate) |
Employment and working conditions |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
|
| Employment in agriculture (% of total employment) (modeled ILO estimate) |
Employment and working conditions |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Share of people employed in agriculture/beverage/fishing and aquaculture/food (vs. EU27) |
Employment and working conditions |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Share of people employed in agriculture/beverage/fishing and aquaculture/food (vs. EU27) |
Employment and working conditions |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Share of people employed in agriculture/beverage/fishing and aquaculture/food (vs. EU27) |
Employment and working conditions |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
|
| Share of people employed in agriculture/beverage/fishing and aquaculture/food (vs. EU27) |
Employment and working conditions |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
|
| Share of people employed in agriculture/beverage/fishing and aquaculture/food (vs. EU27) |
Employment and working conditions |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
|
| Share of people employed in agriculture/beverage/fishing and aquaculture/food (vs. EU27) |
Employment and working conditions |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
|
| Share of people employed in agriculture/beverage/fishing and aquaculture/food (vs. EU27) |
Employment and working conditions |
data availability |
Strong |
|
| Share of people employed in agriculture/beverage/fishing and aquaculture/food (vs. EU27) |
Employment and working conditions |
data accessibility |
Strong |
|
| Share of people employed in agriculture/beverage/fishing and aquaculture/food (vs. EU27) |
Employment and working conditions |
data interoperability |
Strong |
|
| Share of people employed in agriculture/beverage/fishing and aquaculture/food (vs. EU27) |
Employment and working conditions |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
|
| Share of people employed in agriculture/beverage/fishing and aquaculture/food (vs. EU27) |
Employment and working conditions |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Average income of large-scale food producers |
Employment and working conditions |
integration on food system framework |
Weak |
|
| Average income of large-scale food producers |
Employment and working conditions |
goal alignment |
Weak |
|
| Average income of large-scale food producers |
Employment and working conditions |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
|
| Average income of large-scale food producers |
Employment and working conditions |
decision-usefulness |
Adequate |
|
| Average income of large-scale food producers |
Employment and working conditions |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Adequate |
|
| Average income of large-scale food producers |
Employment and working conditions |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
|
| Average income of large-scale food producers |
Employment and working conditions |
data availability |
Weak |
|
| Average income of large-scale food producers |
Employment and working conditions |
data accessibility |
Strong |
|
| Average income of large-scale food producers |
Employment and working conditions |
data interoperability |
Strong |
|
| Average income of large-scale food producers |
Employment and working conditions |
broad geographical coverage |
Weak |
|
| Average income of large-scale food producers |
Employment and working conditions |
timeliness |
Weak |
|
| Average income of small-scale food producers |
Employment and working conditions |
integration on food system framework |
Weak |
|
| Average income of small-scale food producers |
Employment and working conditions |
goal alignment |
Weak |
|
| Average income of small-scale food producers |
Employment and working conditions |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
|
| Average income of small-scale food producers |
Employment and working conditions |
decision-usefulness |
Adequate |
|
| Average income of small-scale food producers |
Employment and working conditions |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Adequate |
|
| Average income of small-scale food producers |
Employment and working conditions |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
|
| Average income of small-scale food producers |
Employment and working conditions |
data availability |
Weak |
|
| Average income of small-scale food producers |
Employment and working conditions |
data accessibility |
Strong |
|
| Average income of small-scale food producers |
Employment and working conditions |
data interoperability |
Strong |
|
| Average income of small-scale food producers |
Employment and working conditions |
broad geographical coverage |
Weak |
|
| Average income of small-scale food producers |
Employment and working conditions |
timeliness |
Weak |
|
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of wage rate in agriculture |
Farmers' income |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of wage rate in agriculture |
Farmers' income |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of wage rate in agriculture |
Farmers' income |
transition monitoring |
Strong |
Captures structural and distributional aspects of transition, clearly interpretable direction, higher proportion = more inclusive and resilient system |
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of wage rate in agriculture |
Farmers' income |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
Highly relevant for policymakers, rural development strategies, supports decisions on: income support targeting, territorial policies, communicable percentage-based indicator easy to understand |
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of wage rate in agriculture |
Farmers' income |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Adequate |
Potential limitation "acceptable/desirable income" threshold may vary by country/context Requires clear definition and harmonization of thresholds. Comparability possible but depends on methodological consistency |
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of wage rate in agriculture |
Farmers' income |
scientific rigor and validation |
Adequate |
Conceptually sound and supported in literature (income adequacy, resilience) |
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of wage rate in agriculture |
Farmers' income |
data availability |
Strong |
2020-2022 |
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of wage rate in agriculture |
Farmers' income |
data accessibility |
Weak |
Likely based on farm-level datasets (e.g. FADN), access often restricted or conditional |
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of wage rate in agriculture |
Farmers' income |
data interoperability |
Adequate |
Can be linked to farm income indicators land use data structural indicators However: depends on harmonization of thresholds and definitions |
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of wage rate in agriculture |
Farmers' income |
broad geographical coverage |
Weak |
7 |
| Proportion of agricultural land area that has achieved an acceptable or desirable level of wage rate in agriculture |
Farmers' income |
timeliness |
Adequate |
|
| Employment rates by sex, age, educational attainment level, country of birth and degree of urbanisation |
Employment and working conditions |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Employment rates by sex, age, educational attainment level, country of birth and degree of urbanisation |
Employment and working conditions |
goal alignment |
Adequate |
|
| Employment rates by sex, age, educational attainment level, country of birth and degree of urbanisation |
Employment and working conditions |
transition monitoring |
Weak |
|
| Employment rates by sex, age, educational attainment level, country of birth and degree of urbanisation |
Employment and working conditions |
decision-usefulness |
Adequate |
|
| Employment rates by sex, age, educational attainment level, country of birth and degree of urbanisation |
Employment and working conditions |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
|
| Employment rates by sex, age, educational attainment level, country of birth and degree of urbanisation |
Employment and working conditions |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
|
| Employment rates by sex, age, educational attainment level, country of birth and degree of urbanisation |
Employment and working conditions |
data availability |
Strong |
|
| Employment rates by sex, age, educational attainment level, country of birth and degree of urbanisation |
Employment and working conditions |
data accessibility |
Strong |
|
| Employment rates by sex, age, educational attainment level, country of birth and degree of urbanisation |
Employment and working conditions |
data interoperability |
Strong |
|
| Employment rates by sex, age, educational attainment level, country of birth and degree of urbanisation |
Employment and working conditions |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
|
| Employment rates by sex, age, educational attainment level, country of birth and degree of urbanisation |
Employment and working conditions |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Persons living in households with very low work intensity, by age group |
Employment and working conditions |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Persons living in households with very low work intensity, by age group |
Employment and working conditions |
goal alignment |
Adequate |
|
| Persons living in households with very low work intensity, by age group |
Employment and working conditions |
transition monitoring |
Weak |
|
| Persons living in households with very low work intensity, by age group |
Employment and working conditions |
decision-usefulness |
Adequate |
|
| Persons living in households with very low work intensity, by age group |
Employment and working conditions |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
|
| Persons living in households with very low work intensity, by age group |
Employment and working conditions |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
|
| Persons living in households with very low work intensity, by age group |
Employment and working conditions |
data availability |
Strong |
|
| Persons living in households with very low work intensity, by age group |
Employment and working conditions |
data accessibility |
Strong |
|
| Persons living in households with very low work intensity, by age group |
Employment and working conditions |
data interoperability |
Strong |
|
| Persons living in households with very low work intensity, by age group |
Employment and working conditions |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
|
| Persons living in households with very low work intensity, by age group |
Employment and working conditions |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Employment rate by sex |
Employment and working conditions |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Employment rate by sex |
Employment and working conditions |
goal alignment |
Adequate |
|
| Employment rate by sex |
Employment and working conditions |
transition monitoring |
Weak |
|
| Employment rate by sex |
Employment and working conditions |
decision-usefulness |
Adequate |
|
| Employment rate by sex |
Employment and working conditions |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
|
| Employment rate by sex |
Employment and working conditions |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
|
| Employment rate by sex |
Employment and working conditions |
data availability |
Strong |
|
| Employment rate by sex |
Employment and working conditions |
data accessibility |
Strong |
|
| Employment rate by sex |
Employment and working conditions |
data interoperability |
Strong |
|
| Employment rate by sex |
Employment and working conditions |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
|
| Employment rate by sex |
Employment and working conditions |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Unemployment rates by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Employment and working conditions |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Unemployment rates by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Employment and working conditions |
goal alignment |
Adequate |
|
| Unemployment rates by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Employment and working conditions |
transition monitoring |
Weak |
|
| Unemployment rates by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Employment and working conditions |
decision-usefulness |
Adequate |
|
| Unemployment rates by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Employment and working conditions |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
|
| Unemployment rates by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Employment and working conditions |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
|
| Unemployment rates by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Employment and working conditions |
data availability |
Strong |
|
| Unemployment rates by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Employment and working conditions |
data accessibility |
Strong |
|
| Unemployment rates by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Employment and working conditions |
data interoperability |
Strong |
|
| Unemployment rates by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Employment and working conditions |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
|
| Unemployment rates by sex, age and educational attainment level |
Employment and working conditions |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Long-term unemployment by sex |
Employment and working conditions |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Long-term unemployment by sex |
Employment and working conditions |
goal alignment |
Adequate |
|
| Long-term unemployment by sex |
Employment and working conditions |
transition monitoring |
Weak |
|
| Long-term unemployment by sex |
Employment and working conditions |
decision-usefulness |
Adequate |
|
| Long-term unemployment by sex |
Employment and working conditions |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
|
| Long-term unemployment by sex |
Employment and working conditions |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
|
| Long-term unemployment by sex |
Employment and working conditions |
data availability |
Strong |
|
| Long-term unemployment by sex |
Employment and working conditions |
data accessibility |
Strong |
|
| Long-term unemployment by sex |
Employment and working conditions |
data interoperability |
Strong |
|
| Long-term unemployment by sex |
Employment and working conditions |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
|
| Long-term unemployment by sex |
Employment and working conditions |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Unemployment, total (% of total labor force) (modeled ILO estimate) |
Employment and working conditions |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Unemployment, total (% of total labor force) (modeled ILO estimate) |
Employment and working conditions |
goal alignment |
Adequate |
|
| Unemployment, total (% of total labor force) (modeled ILO estimate) |
Employment and working conditions |
transition monitoring |
Weak |
|
| Unemployment, total (% of total labor force) (modeled ILO estimate) |
Employment and working conditions |
decision-usefulness |
Adequate |
|
| Unemployment, total (% of total labor force) (modeled ILO estimate) |
Employment and working conditions |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
|
| Unemployment, total (% of total labor force) (modeled ILO estimate) |
Employment and working conditions |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
|
| Unemployment, total (% of total labor force) (modeled ILO estimate) |
Employment and working conditions |
data availability |
Strong |
|
| Unemployment, total (% of total labor force) (modeled ILO estimate) |
Employment and working conditions |
data accessibility |
Strong |
|
| Unemployment, total (% of total labor force) (modeled ILO estimate) |
Employment and working conditions |
data interoperability |
Strong |
|
| Unemployment, total (% of total labor force) (modeled ILO estimate) |
Employment and working conditions |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
|
| Unemployment, total (% of total labor force) (modeled ILO estimate) |
Employment and working conditions |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion |
Social protection and poverty risk |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion |
Social protection and poverty risk |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion |
Social protection and poverty risk |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
|
| Persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion |
Social protection and poverty risk |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
|
| Persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion |
Social protection and poverty risk |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
|
| Persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion |
Social protection and poverty risk |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
|
| Persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion |
Social protection and poverty risk |
data availability |
Strong |
|
| Persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion |
Social protection and poverty risk |
data accessibility |
Strong |
|
| Persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion |
Social protection and poverty risk |
data interoperability |
Strong |
|
| Persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion |
Social protection and poverty risk |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
|
| Persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion |
Social protection and poverty risk |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Income Equality/Income distribution |
Social protection and poverty risk |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Income Equality/Income distribution |
Social protection and poverty risk |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Income Equality/Income distribution |
Social protection and poverty risk |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
|
| Income Equality/Income distribution |
Social protection and poverty risk |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
|
| Income Equality/Income distribution |
Social protection and poverty risk |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Adequate |
Very informative and useful but not very intuitive compared to the other indicators in this category |
| Income Equality/Income distribution |
Social protection and poverty risk |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
|
| Income Equality/Income distribution |
Social protection and poverty risk |
data availability |
Strong |
|
| Income Equality/Income distribution |
Social protection and poverty risk |
data accessibility |
Strong |
|
| Income Equality/Income distribution |
Social protection and poverty risk |
data interoperability |
Strong |
|
| Income Equality/Income distribution |
Social protection and poverty risk |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
|
| Income Equality/Income distribution |
Social protection and poverty risk |
timeliness |
Strong |
Data availability differs between yountries but is generally strong |
| Persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion by degree of urbanisation (broken down by Cities, Towns and suburbs and Rural areas) |
Social protection and poverty risk |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion by degree of urbanisation (broken down by Cities, Towns and suburbs and Rural areas) |
Social protection and poverty risk |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion by degree of urbanisation (broken down by Cities, Towns and suburbs and Rural areas) |
Social protection and poverty risk |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
|
| Persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion by degree of urbanisation (broken down by Cities, Towns and suburbs and Rural areas) |
Social protection and poverty risk |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
|
| Persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion by degree of urbanisation (broken down by Cities, Towns and suburbs and Rural areas) |
Social protection and poverty risk |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
|
| Persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion by degree of urbanisation (broken down by Cities, Towns and suburbs and Rural areas) |
Social protection and poverty risk |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
|
| Persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion by degree of urbanisation (broken down by Cities, Towns and suburbs and Rural areas) |
Social protection and poverty risk |
data availability |
Strong |
|
| Persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion by degree of urbanisation (broken down by Cities, Towns and suburbs and Rural areas) |
Social protection and poverty risk |
data accessibility |
Strong |
|
| Persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion by degree of urbanisation (broken down by Cities, Towns and suburbs and Rural areas) |
Social protection and poverty risk |
data interoperability |
Strong |
|
| Persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion by degree of urbanisation (broken down by Cities, Towns and suburbs and Rural areas) |
Social protection and poverty risk |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
|
| Persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion by degree of urbanisation (broken down by Cities, Towns and suburbs and Rural areas) |
Social protection and poverty risk |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Income share held by lowest 20% |
Social protection and poverty risk |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Income share held by lowest 20% |
Social protection and poverty risk |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Income share held by lowest 20% |
Social protection and poverty risk |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
|
| Income share held by lowest 20% |
Social protection and poverty risk |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
|
| Income share held by lowest 20% |
Social protection and poverty risk |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
|
| Income share held by lowest 20% |
Social protection and poverty risk |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
|
| Income share held by lowest 20% |
Social protection and poverty risk |
data availability |
Strong |
|
| Income share held by lowest 20% |
Social protection and poverty risk |
data accessibility |
Strong |
|
| Income share held by lowest 20% |
Social protection and poverty risk |
data interoperability |
Strong |
|
| Income share held by lowest 20% |
Social protection and poverty risk |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
|
| Income share held by lowest 20% |
Social protection and poverty risk |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Income share held by highest 20% |
Social protection and poverty risk |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Income share held by highest 20% |
Social protection and poverty risk |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Income share held by highest 20% |
Social protection and poverty risk |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
|
| Income share held by highest 20% |
Social protection and poverty risk |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
|
| Income share held by highest 20% |
Social protection and poverty risk |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
|
| Income share held by highest 20% |
Social protection and poverty risk |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
|
| Income share held by highest 20% |
Social protection and poverty risk |
data availability |
Strong |
|
| Income share held by highest 20% |
Social protection and poverty risk |
data accessibility |
Strong |
|
| Income share held by highest 20% |
Social protection and poverty risk |
data interoperability |
Strong |
|
| Income share held by highest 20% |
Social protection and poverty risk |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
|
| Income share held by highest 20% |
Social protection and poverty risk |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Proportion of people living below 50 percent of median income |
Social protection and poverty risk |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Proportion of people living below 50 percent of median income |
Social protection and poverty risk |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Proportion of people living below 50 percent of median income |
Social protection and poverty risk |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
|
| Proportion of people living below 50 percent of median income |
Social protection and poverty risk |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
|
| Proportion of people living below 50 percent of median income |
Social protection and poverty risk |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
|
| Proportion of people living below 50 percent of median income |
Social protection and poverty risk |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
|
| Proportion of people living below 50 percent of median income |
Social protection and poverty risk |
data availability |
Strong |
|
| Proportion of people living below 50 percent of median income |
Social protection and poverty risk |
data accessibility |
Strong |
|
| Proportion of people living below 50 percent of median income |
Social protection and poverty risk |
data interoperability |
Strong |
|
| Proportion of people living below 50 percent of median income |
Social protection and poverty risk |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
|
| Proportion of people living below 50 percent of median income |
Social protection and poverty risk |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Coefficient of variation of habitual caloric consumption distribution (real number) |
Food Equity |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Coefficient of variation of habitual caloric consumption distribution (real number) |
Food Equity |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Coefficient of variation of habitual caloric consumption distribution (real number) |
Food Equity |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
Tracks distributional food-consumption outcomes over time, but needs complementary indicators to explain drivers and mechanisms. |
| Coefficient of variation of habitual caloric consumption distribution (real number) |
Food Equity |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
|
| Coefficient of variation of habitual caloric consumption distribution (real number) |
Food Equity |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
|
| Coefficient of variation of habitual caloric consumption distribution (real number) |
Food Equity |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
|
| Coefficient of variation of habitual caloric consumption distribution (real number) |
Food Equity |
data availability |
Strong |
|
| Coefficient of variation of habitual caloric consumption distribution (real number) |
Food Equity |
data accessibility |
Strong |
|
| Coefficient of variation of habitual caloric consumption distribution (real number) |
Food Equity |
data interoperability |
Strong |
|
| Coefficient of variation of habitual caloric consumption distribution (real number) |
Food Equity |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
|
| Coefficient of variation of habitual caloric consumption distribution (real number) |
Food Equity |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Labor force participation rate, female |
Gender Equity & Inclusion |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Labor force participation rate, female |
Gender Equity & Inclusion |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Labor force participation rate, female |
Gender Equity & Inclusion |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
Useful for monitoring gender-related labour participation over time, but it is a broad contextual indicator and not food-system-specific. |
| Labor force participation rate, female |
Gender Equity & Inclusion |
decision-usefulness |
Adequate |
Official labour-market indicator useful for contextual gender analysis; food-system relevance requires complementary sector-specific indicators. |
| Labor force participation rate, female |
Gender Equity & Inclusion |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
|
| Labor force participation rate, female |
Gender Equity & Inclusion |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
|
| Labor force participation rate, female |
Gender Equity & Inclusion |
data availability |
Strong |
|
| Labor force participation rate, female |
Gender Equity & Inclusion |
data accessibility |
Strong |
|
| Labor force participation rate, female |
Gender Equity & Inclusion |
data interoperability |
Strong |
|
| Labor force participation rate, female |
Gender Equity & Inclusion |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
|
| Labor force participation rate, female |
Gender Equity & Inclusion |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Legal guarantees to women's equal rights to land ownership and/or control |
Gender Equity & Inclusion |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Legal guarantees to women's equal rights to land ownership and/or control |
Gender Equity & Inclusion |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Legal guarantees to women's equal rights to land ownership and/or control |
Gender Equity & Inclusion |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
Tracks institutional/legal enabling conditions for gender-equitable land rights, but does not measure actual outcomes or implementation quality. |
| Legal guarantees to women's equal rights to land ownership and/or control |
Gender Equity & Inclusion |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
|
| Legal guarantees to women's equal rights to land ownership and/or control |
Gender Equity & Inclusion |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
|
| Legal guarantees to women's equal rights to land ownership and/or control |
Gender Equity & Inclusion |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
|
| Legal guarantees to women's equal rights to land ownership and/or control |
Gender Equity & Inclusion |
data availability |
Weak |
EU coverage is limited in the workbook and latest years differ across countries. |
| Legal guarantees to women's equal rights to land ownership and/or control |
Gender Equity & Inclusion |
data accessibility |
Strong |
|
| Legal guarantees to women's equal rights to land ownership and/or control |
Gender Equity & Inclusion |
data interoperability |
Strong |
|
| Legal guarantees to women's equal rights to land ownership and/or control |
Gender Equity & Inclusion |
broad geographical coverage |
Weak |
Only a small subset of EU countries is reported in the workbook. |
| Legal guarantees to women's equal rights to land ownership and/or control |
Gender Equity & Inclusion |
timeliness |
Weak |
Latest data availability is heterogeneous and partly older than three years. |
| Annual Population |
Demography |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Annual Population |
Demography |
goal alignment |
Adequate |
|
| Annual Population |
Demography |
transition monitoring |
Weak |
Tracks a core demographic baseline rather than a food-system transition dynamic. |
| Annual Population |
Demography |
decision-usefulness |
Adequate |
Important denominator and planning variable for food demand, public services, and territorial strategies, but indirect for food-system performance. |
| Annual Population |
Demography |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
|
| Annual Population |
Demography |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
|
| Annual Population |
Demography |
data availability |
Strong |
|
| Annual Population |
Demography |
data accessibility |
Strong |
|
| Annual Population |
Demography |
data interoperability |
Strong |
|
| Annual Population |
Demography |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
|
| Annual Population |
Demography |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Population ages 15-64 |
Demography |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Population ages 15-64 |
Demography |
goal alignment |
Adequate |
|
| Population ages 15-64 |
Demography |
transition monitoring |
Weak |
Useful for tracking demographic structure and labour-potential changes, but it does not directly monitor food-system transition. |
| Population ages 15-64 |
Demography |
decision-usefulness |
Adequate |
Useful for labour, demand, and vulnerability assessments; food-system relevance remains indirect. |
| Population ages 15-64 |
Demography |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
|
| Population ages 15-64 |
Demography |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
|
| Population ages 15-64 |
Demography |
data availability |
Strong |
|
| Population ages 15-64 |
Demography |
data accessibility |
Strong |
|
| Population ages 15-64 |
Demography |
data interoperability |
Strong |
|
| Population ages 15-64 |
Demography |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
|
| Population ages 15-64 |
Demography |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Individuals using the Internet |
Social resilience |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Individuals using the Internet |
Social resilience |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Individuals using the Internet |
Social resilience |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
Captures a key enabling condition for digital inclusion, risk communication, and adaptive capacity, but not a direct food-system behaviour or outcome. |
| Individuals using the Internet |
Social resilience |
decision-usefulness |
Adequate |
Useful for digital inclusion and resilience planning; food-system relevance is indirect and should be combined with sector-specific access indicators. |
| Individuals using the Internet |
Social resilience |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
|
| Individuals using the Internet |
Social resilience |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
|
| Individuals using the Internet |
Social resilience |
data availability |
Strong |
|
| Individuals using the Internet |
Social resilience |
data accessibility |
Strong |
|
| Individuals using the Internet |
Social resilience |
data interoperability |
Strong |
|
| Individuals using the Internet |
Social resilience |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
|
| Individuals using the Internet |
Social resilience |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Mobile cellular subscriptions (per 100 people) |
Social resilience |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Mobile cellular subscriptions (per 100 people) |
Social resilience |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Mobile cellular subscriptions (per 100 people) |
Social resilience |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
|
| Mobile cellular subscriptions (per 100 people) |
Social resilience |
decision-usefulness |
Adequate |
Useful for infrastructure and resilience context, but interpretation requires caution because subscriptions can exceed actual individual access. |
| Mobile cellular subscriptions (per 100 people) |
Social resilience |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
|
| Mobile cellular subscriptions (per 100 people) |
Social resilience |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
|
| Mobile cellular subscriptions (per 100 people) |
Social resilience |
data availability |
Strong |
|
| Mobile cellular subscriptions (per 100 people) |
Social resilience |
data accessibility |
Strong |
|
| Mobile cellular subscriptions (per 100 people) |
Social resilience |
data interoperability |
Strong |
|
| Mobile cellular subscriptions (per 100 people) |
Social resilience |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
|
| Mobile cellular subscriptions (per 100 people) |
Social resilience |
timeliness |
Adequate |
|
| Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism: Estimate |
Social resilience |
integration on food system framework |
Strong |
|
| Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism: Estimate |
Social resilience |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism: Estimate |
Social resilience |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
Tracks an enabling institutional condition for resilience and risk exposure, but it does not measure food-system adaptation directly. |
| Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism: Estimate |
Social resilience |
decision-usefulness |
Adequate |
Useful for contextual risk assessment and governance analysis; perception-based composite score should be triangulated. |
| Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism: Estimate |
Social resilience |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
|
| Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism: Estimate |
Social resilience |
scientific rigor and validation |
Adequate |
Robust and widely used, but perception-based and composite; interpretation should be cautious. |
| Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism: Estimate |
Social resilience |
data availability |
Strong |
|
| Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism: Estimate |
Social resilience |
data accessibility |
Strong |
|
| Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism: Estimate |
Social resilience |
data interoperability |
Strong |
|
| Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism: Estimate |
Social resilience |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
|
| Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism: Estimate |
Social resilience |
timeliness |
Strong |
|
| Rural NGA (Next Generation Access) broadband coverage/availability |
Access to Infrastructure and Technology/Social resilience |
integration on food system framework |
Adequate |
|
| Rural NGA (Next Generation Access) broadband coverage/availability |
Access to Infrastructure and Technology/Social resilience |
goal alignment |
Strong |
|
| Rural NGA (Next Generation Access) broadband coverage/availability |
Access to Infrastructure and Technology/Social resilience |
transition monitoring |
Adequate |
|
| Rural NGA (Next Generation Access) broadband coverage/availability |
Access to Infrastructure and Technology/Social resilience |
decision-usefulness |
Strong |
|
| Rural NGA (Next Generation Access) broadband coverage/availability |
Access to Infrastructure and Technology/Social resilience |
standardization, comparability, and complementarity |
Strong |
|
| Rural NGA (Next Generation Access) broadband coverage/availability |
Access to Infrastructure and Technology/Social resilience |
scientific rigor and validation |
Strong |
|
| Rural NGA (Next Generation Access) broadband coverage/availability |
Access to Infrastructure and Technology/Social resilience |
data availability |
Strong |
|
| Rural NGA (Next Generation Access) broadband coverage/availability |
Access to Infrastructure and Technology/Social resilience |
data accessibility |
Strong |
|
| Rural NGA (Next Generation Access) broadband coverage/availability |
Access to Infrastructure and Technology/Social resilience |
data interoperability |
Strong |
|
| Rural NGA (Next Generation Access) broadband coverage/availability |
Access to Infrastructure and Technology/Social resilience |
broad geographical coverage |
Strong |
|
| Rural NGA (Next Generation Access) broadband coverage/availability |
Access to Infrastructure and Technology/Social resilience |
timeliness |
Strong |
|