Community of Practice: Collecting Data (GFI Pilot in Brazil)

435 views
373 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
435
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
15
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • ICV and Imazon have been piloting the GFI indicators assessment in Brazil.That assessment is both comprehensive and detailedand we want is to be based on objective data, so the data collection is a crucial issue hereSince the idea of piloting GFI is exactly about testinghow to address information gap and how to design methodologies to fill itWe just wanted to share with you some reflections we have on the data collection process
  • We chose to apply the assessment to MT and Para states because they presents the highest rate of deforestation in the Amazon in the last ten years.Since the GFI is a governance assessment in the context for REDD, it was relevant.We worked with the 4 issues of the GFI framework (tenure, zoning, forest management and forest financial flows).For that, we proceeded to a massive literature and legislation review, and to more than 60 interviews
  • One of the lessons of the pilot phase = necessity of an information scoping stepDefinition of each:-Availability-Quality-Disclosure
  • To illustrate it,We worked on the 4 issues of the GFI framework, and the example I chose to illustrate the data collection process belongs to the forest financial flows category.We assessed the way state forest fund were managed. A core governance issue for REDD, since fund could be a channel to distribute REDD funds.How 4 state forest fund are currently being managed
  • Community of Practice: Collecting Data (GFI Pilot in Brazil)

    1. 1. COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE: COLLECTING DATA GFI PILOT IN BRAZIL
    2. 2. GFI PILOT IN BRAZIL• 2009-2010• 82 indicators,• Literature and legislation review• 60 interviews
    3. 3. 3 SCOPING QUESTIONS BEFORESTARTING DATA COLLECTION: Availability of data? Consequences for the research Quality of in terms of data? time, money and expected results Disclosure of data?
    4. 4. EX: MT FLORESTA GOVERNANCE Public participation in fund design• State forest STRONG 3 Clear rules to fund Monitoring fund guide fund established in effectiveness and impacts 2 MODERATE replenishment Mato Grosso in and distribution 2005 WEAK 1 Comprehensive• Objective: and timely 0to support forest financial reportsplantation andrestoration with Adequate Support forthe collection of capacity for vulnerable groupslogging fees management of applying to the distribution… forest fund Adequate forest expertise for fund administration
    5. 5. WHEN DATA ARE NOT AVAILABLEEX: FF1.Public participation in fund design • Who participates to the establishment of fund priorities? To the establishment of procedures? • Is there information disclosed on that process? • Is there examples of objectives or rules review due to stakeholders feedback? • Specific methodologies • Case study versus overall assessment • Interview for perception data
    6. 6. WHEN AVAILABLE DATA ARE NOT COMPLETE/ACCURATE/UPDATED/RELIABLEEx: FF8. Monitoring of fund effectiveness and impacts • What are the indicators and criteria used for monitoring? • What is the frequency/periodicity of monitoring? • How are stakeholders consulted? • Lack of accuracy/ updating of public data could be a governance finding • Specific methodologies • Case study versus overall assessment • Interview for perception data
    7. 7. WHEN DATA ARE NOT DISCLOSEDEX: FF7. Comprehensive and timely financial report • Are financial reports accessible? • What is in the reports? • Lack of disclosure is a governance finding and could be an advocacy target • Help: others actors (State Prosecutor)
    8. 8. CONCLUSIONS• Information mapping as a first scoping step for governance assessment help to measure the research effort (time and money) and to know what is feasible• Importance of good relationship/ trust with public agencies and informants in general

    ×