Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns

Potential and Illustrative Core Indicators:

Indicator 77: Global Food Loss Indicator [or other indicator to be developed to track the share of food lost or wasted in the value chain after harvest]

Rationale and definition: Food losses through inefficiencies in the food production chain and waste are widespread in all countries. At present, direct data on food losses and waste is sparse and difficult to compare internationally. This is partly explained by the high cost of directly measuring losses and waste for numerous categories of food products and across different stages from harvest to final consumption. In view of the importance of food losses and waste, a basic indicator is needed to track progress over time. FAO is currently developing the Global Food Loss Indicator, which is expected to be available by end of 2015 but remains to be validated. The index is based on a model using observed variables that conceivably influence food losses (e.g. road density, weather, pests) to estimate quantitative losses. Data on these variables are available from several sources, including country statistics, FAOSTAT, WFP’s Logistics Capacity index, World Road Statistics, etc. In addition, depending on their priorities and monitoring systems, countries may adopt other indicators to more directly track food losses and/or waste for agricultural product categories of highest priority to their food and nutrition security.154

Disaggregation: Opportunities for disaggregation to be reviewed once the indicator has been defined.

Comments and limitations: Significant efforts will be necessary to create a baseline for food loss and waste. Staple crops that are often combined after harvest for processing will usually provide better data for food loss. Crops grown on a small scale and/or consumed directly by the household farm will be much more difficult to assess, yet they are the crops that tend to experience the highest food losses.

Preliminary assessment of current data availability by Friends of the Chair: C

Potential lead agency or agencies: FAO.

Indicator 78: Consumption of ozone-depleting substances (MDG Indicator)

Rationale and definition: This indicator measures the consumption trends for ozone-depleting substances (ODS) controlled under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, thereby allowing inference of the amounts of ODS being eliminated as a result of the protocol. It is expressed in ODP Tons, which is defined as the Metric Tons of ODSs weighted by their Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP).155

Disaggregation: To be reviewed.

Comments and limitations: The Montreal and the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer target the complete phase-out of use of ODS.

Preliminary assessment of current data availability by Friends of the Chair: A

Potential lead agency or agencies: The UNEP Ozone Secretariat collects internationally comparable data.

Indicator 79: Aerosol optical depth (AOD)

154 FAO, IFAD and WFP, (2014), Food security, nutrition and sustainable agriculture in the post-2015 agenda: priority targets and indicators identified by FAO, IFAD and WFP, Working group paper, FAO: Rome. 155 For more information on emissions of ozone-depleting substances and their contribution to planetary boundaries, see Rockström et al., (2009).

Revised working draft (July 25, 2014) 86

Rationale and definition: This indicator measures total aerosols (e.g. urban haze, smoke particles, desert dust, sea salt) distributed within a column of air from the Earth's surface to the top of the atmosphere.

Disaggregation: This indicator can be reported with a high degree of spatial disaggregation.

Comments and limitations: To be reviewed.

Preliminary assessment of current data availability by Friends of the Chair: To be determined.

Potential lead agency or agencies: Satellites collect the data for this indicator so it can be available for all countries. An agency such as UNEP could be responsible for collecting internationally comparable data across all countries.

Indicator 80: [Share of companies valued at more than [$1 billion] that publish integrated reporting]— Indicator to be developed

Rationale and definition: Today, most companies report only on their financial results without regard to their social and environmental impacts. As a result their investor may not be aware of their full risk exposure. Likewise, society does not know a company’s contribution to sustainable development. Several integrated reporting standards have been developed that track the social and environmental externalities of businesses. One prominent example is the International Integrated Reporting Council (IISC). We propose that an indicator be created to track the percentage of large companies (i.e. larger than [US$1 billion, measured in PPP]) that prepare integrated reports that are consistent with the SDGs and conform to standards that would need to be defined.

Disaggregation: This indicator can be disaggregated by sector of activity, ownership (listed vs. privately held or public companies), and other characteristics.

Comments and limitations: The standards and methodologies tracked by this indicator need to be defined. In particular, the indicator would need to specify standards for integrated reporting that can be applied in a wide range of jurisdictions.

Preliminary assessment of current data availability by Friends of the Chair: B

Potential lead agency or agencies: The Global Compact, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), and/or the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) could track such an indicator.

Indicator 81: Publication of resource-based contracts

Rationale and definition: This indicator measures whether resource-based contracts between governments and business, including those related to extractive resource exploration and production, as well as agriculture and forestry operations, are published in a timely manner. Contract transparency is an essential precondition to ensuring that all parties benefit from large-scale resource investments. Secrecy can be a convenient way to hide power imbalances, incompetence, mismanagement, and corruption. Disclosure is a necessary precursor for the coordinated and effective management of the sector by government agencies. It also allows citizens to monitor contracts in areas such as environmental compliance and the fulfillment of social commitments. Contract transparency also provides incentives: government officials can be deterred from seeking their own interests over the population’s and, over time, governments can also increase their bargaining power by gauging contracts from around the world.156

156 Collier, P and Antonio, P. et al., (2013), Harnessing Natural Resources for Sustainable Development: Challenges and Solutions, Paris, France and New York, USA: SDSN.

Revised working draft (July 25, 2014) 87

This indicator measures whether resource-based contracts between governments and business, including those related to extractive resource exploration and production as well as agriculture and forestry operations, are publicly published in a timely manner. Based on the rating system for the extractive industry by the Resource Governance Index,157 the indicator would be constructed so that a government can receive one of four ratings:

• 100 = Yes, all valid or approved contracts are published in full,

• 67 = Yes. The majority of contracts are published in full but there are some projects, contracts or licenses that have not been published,

• 33 = Some contracts are published but there are no clear rules for publishing and this remains rare,

• 0 = No. Contracts are not published.

We propose that available indicators for the extractives industries be expanded to also include large-scale investments in agriculture, forestry, fishing concessions, and other large natural resources contracts. Disaggregation: This indicator can be disaggregated by industries and commodities. Comments and limitations: To be reviewed.

Preliminary assessment of current data availability by Friends of the Chair: C

Potential lead agency or agencies: UN Global Compact, EITI, and/or UNCTAD.

Additional indicators that countries may consider:

• [Strategic environmental and social impact assessments required]— Indicator to be developed. This indicator measures whether strategic environmental and social impact assessments are required for all resource-based projects.

• [Indicator on chemical pollution] - to be developed. Chemical pollution is a critical dimension of global environmental change, but it is very difficult to measure on an internationally comparable basis. Several indicators exist for specific pollutants, but they are typically available only in a small subset of countries and measure only a small share of chemical pollution.

• [Indicator on toxic chemicals] - to be developed. This indicator would measure safety and exposure to key toxic chemicals that affect human health and ecosystem functions.

• [Indicator on policies for sustainable tourism] - to be developed: this indicator would measure policies on sustainable tourism.

• CO2 intensity of the building sector and of new buildings (KgCO2/m2/year). The building sector (residential and commercial) accounts for a large share of greenhouse gas emissions around the world. This indicator is defined as the volume of CO2 emissions (measured in kilograms) per unit of building surface (measured in square meter) and per year. The indicator is reported for the exiting building stock and new buildings added during the year.

• [Legislative branch oversight role regarding resource-based contracts and licenses]— Indicator to be developed. This indicator measures the existence and enforcement of a legislative framework around natural resources.

157 See Resource Governance Index website: http://www.revenuewatch.org/rgi

Revised working draft (July 25, 2014)