We are a diverse group, women and men, from all regions of the world who came together in this EGM convened by Global Land Indicators Initiative, UN Habitat, Oxfam, Landesa, Huairou Commission and UN Women. We are from governments including national statistical organizations and land agencies, multi-lateral agencies, civil society organizations, including women’s organizations and groups that met on July 8 – 9, 2017 to discuss women’s land rights in the context of the SDGs.

The World Bank Group and UN-Habitat as co-custodians of the SDG Indicator 1.4.2, in collaboration with the Global Land Indicator Initiative (GLII) organized an international Expert Group Meeting (EGM) at the World Bank Headquarters in Washington D.C. from 25 -26 May 2017 in preparation for the reclassification process of the SDG Indicator 1.4.2.

This document contains the updated tier classification, based on changes made by the Inter-agency and Expert Group on SDG Indicators (IAEG-SDGs) following its 3rd (March 2016), 4th (Nov. 2016) and 5th (March 2017) meetings. The tier classification of many indicators is expected to change as methodologies are developed and data availability increases. Therefore, the IAEG-SDGs has developed a mechanism to annually review the tier classification at its Fall (or 4th quarter) meetings. The updated tier classification is expected to be released following those meetings unless otherwise noted.

•Indicator Framework Mandate

•Inter-agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators (IAEG-SDGs)

•The Global Indicator Framework

•Follow-up and reviews of the global indicators

•Relationship between global, regional and national indicators

•Data custodian agencies

•IAEG-SDG work programme for 2017

•IAEG-SDG reference materials

On 25 September, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development as the agreed framework for international development. It is the successor to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). However, unlike the MDGs, the 2030 Agenda presents a much wider scope by deliberately and more fully incorporating economic and environmental sustainability, as well as the aspiration of many countries for peaceful and inclusive societies. The agenda also applies to all countries rather than just the developing countries.

In this study we analysed: (1) the biodiversity conservation capacity of Agroforestry Systems (AFS) in temperate highlands of the Tehuacán–Cuicatlán Valley, Central Mexico, (2) human cultural motives and actions for conserving such diversity and (3) problems endangering that capacity. We evaluated the richness and diversity of perennial plant species maintained in AFS through vegetation sampling of 14 agricultural plots and compared their composition with that of natural forests (14 plots of 500� m² each).

The originality of the REDD proposal is its incentives-based mechanism designed to reward the governments of developing countries for their performance in reducing deforestation as measured against a baseline. This mechanism is founded on the hypothesis that developing countries ‘pay’ an opportunity cost to conserve their forests and would prefer other choices and convert their wooden lands to other uses. The basic idea is, therefore, to pay rents to these countries to compensate for the anticipated foregone revenues.

The role of land registration in reducing rural poverty has been debated for several decades. This article analyses the impacts of land registration on land rentals, security of land tenure, disputes over land, use of credit facilities from formal financial institutions and gender access and control over land. Our findings are based on data collected between April and December 2011 in irrigation systems in three regional states of Ethiopia using in‐depth interviews and field surveys.

Recent research on land deals reports gigantic quantities of hectares seized, with relatively little regard for the solidity of the evidence or for considerations of scale other than area. This commentary questions the usefulness of aggregating data of uneven quality and transforming it into ‘facts’. Making claims on the basis of problematic evidence does not serve agrarian and human rights activists well, since it may undercut their legitimacy and make it difficult for them to identify their adversaries.