Clarification on Productivity Sub-Indicator Outcomes in Trends.Earth for SDG 15.3.1

29 views

Skip to first unread message

Christina M

unread,

Nov 4, 2024, 6:10:46 AM11/4/24

to Trends.Earth Users

Hello Trends.Earth team and users,

I have questions about the Productivity State and Productivity Trend outputs for SDG 15.3.1 reporting in Trends.Earth, particularly regarding how they align with the UNCCD SDG 15.3.1 Good Practice Guidance (GPG) v2.0.

Productivity State

The GPG recommends that for a baseline period between 2000–2015, the productivity state should compare the 3 most recent years with the previous 13 years. For example, if I set 2001-2015 as the baseline in Trends.Earth, the productivity state map correctly compares 2001-2012 to 2013-2015 (12 years vs the most recent 3 years) based on the available data.

However, for the reporting period, the GPG similarly suggests comparing the 3 most recent years with the preceding 13 years. But when I set 2019-2022 as the reporting/progress period in the “Sub-indicators for SDG 15.3.1” algorithm, the productivity state map instead compares 2019 (1 year) to 2020–2022 (the most recent 3 years), which does not align with the suggested 13 vs. 3-year comparison structure.

Could you clarify if the algorithm does not account for this 13-year comparison in the reporting period? If so, should I use the Land Productivity algorithm with manual date input to achieve the correct comparison as per the GPG guidelines?

Productivity Trend

The GPG also suggests that the productivity trend for the baseline period should cover 16 annual productivity measurements between 2000-2015. Setting a baseline of 2001-2015 in the “Sub-indicators for SDG” algorithm produces a productivity trend map over this period, as expected.

For the reporting period, the GPG recommends maintaining a similar 16-year period to calculate the trend consistently. However, when I set 2019-2022 as the reporting period in “Sub-indicators for SDG,” the trend map appears limited to only this 4-year period. Could you confirm whether the algorithm excludes the 16-year trend calculation for the reporting period?