IAEG-SDG “GREEN” INDICATORS
WWF CONTRIBUTION
Global and Regional Policy, 9 November 2015
WWF welcomes the progress made by the IAEG-SDG at its second meeting in Bangkok (26-28
October 2015). As the global indicator framework begins to take shape, we highlight the following
observations:

The environmental dimensions of some targets are being lost. Several proposed
indicators (both green and grey) exclude the environmental dimensions of targets under
goals 1, 2, 4, 8, 9 and 11. We strongly urge the IAEG-SDG to ensure that the final set of
global indicators will fully track the environmental elements of the SDGs and allow a
balanced assessment of progress across the three dimensions of sustainability.

There is an opportunity to improve measures of certain environmental targets and
more fully measure biodiversity-related targets while restricting the total number of
indicators needed across the full framework.

A number of critical environmental indicators are on the list of grey indicators
slated for additional work. WWF welcomes the co-chairs’ indication of their intention to
work with stakeholders to make progress on these indicators and calls for timely
completion of this work.
WWF Comments on “Green” Indicator proposals
Goal 1
Target 1.2 Indicator 2: Methodological guidance for this indicator should support inclusion of
“poverty in environment of good quality” as an element of "poverty in living standards", alongside
more standard MPI components. People in lower income brackets disproportionately experience
the burden of poor environmental quality. See “Monitoring multidimensional poverty in the regions
of the European Union” (https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/default/files/mpi_report_online.pdf).
Goal 2
Target 2.3 Indicator 1: WWF suggests adding "Fisheries" in the classes of enterprise named to
make this indicator fully consistent with the target: “Value of production per labour unit (measured
in constant USD), by classes of farming/pastoral/forestry/fisheries enterprise size”. Fisheries are
identified as an explicit category in the Agriculture Orientation Index.
Target 2.3 Indicator 2: The indicator should be modified to read "...using sustainable irrigation
systems" to fully reflect the spirit of this target. Sustainable irrigation covers parameters related to
the degradation, loss or depletion of resources such as soil, water, and energy, and with a
particular attention to the protection and conservation of biodiversity and the environment.
Page 1 of 4
Goal 5
Target 5.a Indicator 1: The indicator should also be collected by type of agriculture land use,
specifically cropland, meadows or pastures, forest land, and aquaculture to fully capture the
range of land tenure issues for women
Target 5.a Indicator 2: The indicator should also be collected by type of land use, specifically
cropland, meadows or pastures, forest land, and aquaculture to fully capture the range of land
tenure issues for women.
Goal 6
Target 6.6 Indicator 1: We support the proposed modified indicator “Percentage of change in
fresh water ecosystems,” however, in recognition that this indicator has limitations as a purely
area-based indicator, WWF supports the inclusion of an additional priority indicator: “Coverage of
important sites for freshwater biodiversity by protected areas.” It is important to note that this is a
disaggregation of the overall indicator which has been proposed for Target 15.1 (“Coverage of
important sites for biodiversity by protected areas”), so including this as a complementary
indicator for 6.6 would not add to the overall number of indicators. A third indicator which may
be useful to address the essential issue of connectivity of fresh water ecosystems is the River
Fragmentation and Flow Regulation BIP indicator http://www.bipindicators.net/riverfragmentation.
Goal 9
Target 9.1 Indicator 1: The current proposed indicator prioritises access without measurement of
the sustainability element in the target. WWF suggests modifying to "Share of the rural population
who live with 2km of an all season road constructed in accordance to Social and Environmental
Safeguards policies."
Goal 11
Target 11.1 Indicator 1: Recommend adding “or lacking secure tenure”.
Target 11.2 Indicator 1: This indicator has lost precision with the replacement of the .5 kilometre
limit by "convenient access". We recommend reinstating the 0.5km limit or if the indicator remains
as worded to clearly define “convenient access to public transport” with key stakeholders such as
the Institute for Transport and Development Policy and the Partnership on Sustainable Low
Carbon Transport.
Target 11.3 Indicator 1: The proposed indicator does little to address the sustainability and
potential for integrated and participatory human settlement planning and management as set out
in the target. We recommend to add ‘the number of cities employing participatory practices’
(WB/HABITAT would have data) and ’number of cities signing up to the Compact of Mayors’
(http://www.compactofmayors.org/)
Target 11.6 Indicator 1: The term "Adequate final discharge" needs to be defined to reflect best
practice standards for waste management in full consideration of health and environmental risks
and suitable measures to prevent or reduce waste. This indicator could also be enriched by
collecting percentage tons of solid waste treated in the formal sector (formal vs informal waste
treatment is a useful qualifier for well managed waste), and percentage tons of solid waste
recovered from solid waste streams (as energy or organic matter) as a good indicator for
reduction of adverse environmental impact through reducing landfilling or improper disposal of
waste from urban areas"
Goal 12
Target 12.6 Indicator 1: WWF supports the suggested indicator, however there needs to be a
clear definition of ‘sustainable procurement’: this could include specification of credible
certification schemes; or commitment to zero-deforestation procurement etc.
Page 2 of 4
Goal 13
Target 13.a Indicator 1: "Annual" should be inserted to make this indicator fully consistent with the
target: "Mobilized amount of USD per year starting in 2020 accountable towards the USD 100
billion annual commitments."
Goal 14
Target 14.4 Indicator 1: WWF supports the suggested indicator but it should be complemented
with a suite of BIP indicators with interlinkages to other targets: The Living Planet Index (6.6,
14.1, 14.2, 14.5, 15.1, 15.2, 15.4, 15.5, 15.7, 15.8) and The Red List Index (14.1, 14.2, 15.2, 15.4,
15.5, 15.7, 15.8), which will show population trends and conservation status of key species.
Target 14.5 Indicator 1: WWF supports the indicator of Coverage of protected areas in relation to
marine areas (linked to 6.6, 14.2, 14.5, 15.1, 15.2, 15.4, 15.5) but this must be supplemented with
additional BIP indicators to give the full picture: the Living Planet Index (also 6.6, 14.1, 14.2, 14.4,
15.1, 15.2, 15.4, 15.5, 15.7, 15.8) and PA management effectiveness (6.6, 14.2, 15.1, 15.2, 15.4,
15.5). It is also important to ensure representativeness (coherence/connectivity) of Protected
Areas and we support IUCN’s earlier comments on 1the need to link to Key Biodiversity Areas.
Target 14.c Indicator 1: The proposed indicator is not consistent with the target - ILO conventions
do not address conservation and sustainable use, and regional seas conventions only apply to
those regional coastal states members, and do not cover issues such as fisheries, extractives or
shipping. We suggest that the proposed indicator be broadened to reflect the target with the
following additional text “...and ratifying, implementing and ensuring compliance with agreements
contributing to meeting obligations and commitments reflected in provisions of UNCLOS.”
Goal 15
Target 15.2 Indicator 1: Note: Relative to "Sustainable Forest Management": We welcome that
the IAEG has decided to keep “Sustainable Forest Management” as a possible indicator (coded
grey). However, at the IAEG-SDG meeting in Bangkok it was concluded by the Co-Chair that, in
response to comments made from members and observers of the IAEG, that this indicator should
include specific reference to forest management certification. We miss that addition in the
document showing the results of that meeting. Concretely we ask that you record in the box on
proposed modifications/alternative/additional indicators. “It was agreed that the indicator on
sustainable forest management should include specific reference to forest certification as one of
the elements”. WWF fully supports inclusion of “Net permanent forest loss” as an additional
indicator for 15.2.
Target 15.4 Indicator 1: WWF supports the suggested indicator “Coverage of Protected Areas”
but recommends that this target be more fully informed with a combination of existing BIP
indicators with interlinkages to other targets: The Living Planet Index of montane species (also
6.6, 14.1, 14.2, 14.4, 14.5, 15.1, 15.2, 15.5, 15.7, 15.8), The Red List Index (14.1, 14.2, 14.4,
15.2, 15.5, 15.7, 15.8) and PA management effectiveness (6.6, 14.2, 14.5, 15.1, 15.2, 15.5) as
well as a measure of habitat cover (6.6, 14.2, 15.1, 15.5).
Target 15.5 Indicator 1: A combination of indicators is needed to capture adequately the different
elements of this target. We propose to use a combination of existing BIP indicators with
interlinkages to multiple targets: The Living Planet Index (also 6.6, 14.1, 14.2, 14.4, 14.5, 15.1,
15.2, 15.4, 15.7, 15.8), The Red List Index (14.1, 14.2, 14.4, 15.2, 15.4, 15.7, 15.8) and habitat
cover measures such as “Percentage of change in forest extent over time” (6.6, 14.2, 15.1, 15.4).
Target 15.7 Indicator 1: WWF supports the inclusion of 15.7.1 Red List Index for species in trade,
especially if used with the Living Planet Index for species in trade. However, these two indices do
not always distinguish between legal and illegal trade; they should be linked to trade systems
Page 3 of 4
which do, and therefore linked to "Proportion of detected trade in wildlife and wildlife products that
is illegal".
Goal 17
Target 17.14 Indicator 1: The proposed indicator does not provide a yard stick for implementation.
WWF would propose a reformulation to "Number of dedicated government staff time to
implementation of relevant international instruments" or "Primary government expenditures on
implementation of relevant international instruments as percentage of national budget".
Page 4 of 4