3. Remembering version 1….
Defining characteristics
Civil society led
Qualitative yet evidence-based
Comprehensive yet detailed
Global benchmarks, locally adapted
4. The GFI Framework (V1)
GOVERNANCE COMPONENTS
Actors Rules Practices
GOVERNANCE
PRINCIPLES OF GOOD
Transparency
Participation land tenure
land use planning
forest management
Accountability revenue distribution and economic
incentives
Coordination
Capacity
Country Profile Indicators
(key facts and quantitative information relating to forest sector outcomes and outputs)
5. GOVERNANCE COMPONENTS
Forest Actors
government institutions, Rules Practice
Tenure international institutions, reform processes, policy content, law
content
implementation, administration, monitoring,
enforcement, compliance
civil society, private sector
Government Legal Framework for Forest Forest Tenure Administration
Capacity and coordination to Tenure Effective provision of administrative
Transparency implement the forest tenure Recognition of a variety of services
system different types of forest tenure Transparency of processes for awarding
PRINCIPLES OF GOOD GOVERNANCE
Capacity to design and Legal support and protection of forest utilization contracts
administer forest utilization forest tenure Comprehensiveness of forest utilization
Participation contracts Rules governing the sale and contracts
Capacity of mechanisms to allocation of public forests
resolve disputes over forest Roles and responsibilities for forest Forest Tenure Information
tenure tenure administration Quality of forest tenure information
Public accessibility of forest tenure
Civil society Law and Policy Processes information
Accountability Capacity to work on forest Coordination of land tenure laws
tenure issues and policies with land use planning Community Forest Tenure
Representation of and forest management objectives Recognition and resolution of community
indigenous and other forest tenure claims in public forests
customary institutions Participatory community mapping
Coordination
Dispute Resolution
Effectiveness of dispute resolution
mechanisms
Capacity
6. Indicator Methodology
Indicator: Management of forest funds
Diagnostic Question: To what extent are forest
funds managed in a transparent and accountable
manner?
Elements of Quality:
• Clear authority for management
• Inclusive process to set fund priorities
• Transparent rules to guide spending decisions
• Annual external auditing
• Transparent financial reporting
• Transparent monitoring of impacts
7. Pilot Phase Reflections
• Core concepts resonate
• Being comprehensive (i.e. 94 indicators!) isn’t
easy
• Country tailoring is essential
• Kinks in the methodology
• How to engage more potential users?
9. Revision Strategy
Improved Revised Indicators More Guidance
Organization
• When to prioritize
• Eliminate
redundancies & fill • What to assess
• Navigate & search
gaps • How to assess
• Prioritize & tailor
• Communicate results • Clear & focused
& tell stories diagnostic questions
• Objective EOQs
10. 1.0 vs. 2.0
what is the same, what is different?
• Core concepts define scope
Content • Eliminated redundancies & filled gaps
• Indicators grouped under four thematic areas
Structure • Within thematic areas, indicators grouped
under 3-4 thematic “components”
• Diagnostic questions + elements of quality
Methodology • Clearer and more focused indicators with
improved guidance
11. Four Thematic Areas
Tenure of Forest Land
Forest Tenure
and Resources
Coordination of Land
Land Use Planning
Use
Forest Institutions &
Forest Management
Decision-Making
Forest Revenues & Forest Management &
Incentives Enforcement
12. Core Components
Forest Forest
Tenure of Forest Coordination of
Institutions & Management &
Land Resources Land Use
Decision-Making Enforcement
legal and policy
managing sector legislative &
community forest framework for
impacts on executive
tenure forest
forests decision-making
management
forest agency
private forest land use planning performance & forest
ownership processes anti-corruption administration
measures
implementation
state forest forest sector forest law
of land use
ownership financial practices enforcement
polices/laws
dispute resolution civil society and
mechanisms the media
13. Indicator Index
• Index listing indicators by “key terms”
For example:
1. Judiciary: see indicators 5, 20, 34, 35
2. Illegal logging: see indicators 2, 29, 68-70
3. Decentralization: see indicators….
14. Next Steps
• Continuing to refine indicators and indicator
guidance
• External review and partner feedback
• Publish GFI Toolkit v2.0
15. GFI Manual?
• Broader guidance on how to design,
implement, and use assessments of forest
governance
• For any potential user – not just GFI civil
society partners
• For any potential assessment tool – GFI is part
of a larger suite of complementary tools and
approaches
16. Your Inputs
• Learn from different perspectives and experiences
with implementing governance assessments and
using information
• Identify common challenges and needs for
improved guidance
Our Outputs
• Compiled insights from the
workshop
• GFI Manual?
Editor's Notes
Introducing some key improvements to the GFI toolkitDocument shows in a condensed form the latest full list of indicators, mostly just as a remind of the scope of issues we cover, as well as the types of questions we ask about governanceThe document also shows the new structure that we are using to organize the indicators, which I’ll discuss in more detail today.
Before diving into version 2, useful to review the key aspects of version 1, some of you more familiar with our tool than otherseLaunched GFI in 2008 in collaboration withImazon/ICVFollowed in the footsteps of TAI and EGI that also use indicator tools to assess enviro governanceBut really started from black sheet. Started by identifying the core concepts that would define our approach to good governance 5 well understood principlesIdentified 3 components of governance: rules that govern forests, actors that make decisions about how to use/manage forests, and ways rules/actors interact to result in practices on the ground
In addition to methodology, agreed on the defining characteristics of our approach.We work with civil society partners who use the tool to carry out the assessments in their countries and take action based on the resultsWe don’t attempt to quantify governance. Inherently qualitative subject, but that doesn’t mean it needs to be subjective, we can base a qualitative analysis on concrete and objective evidenceWe take a comprehensive approach, attempting to provide a holistic picture of governance in all its complexity. But also seeking to be detailed in our research, because detailed information is the basis for action.Its an international tool based on global benchmarks, but its meant to be adapted by our partners to fit their unique governance context
Over past year and half piloting version 1 in Brazil, Indonesia and CameroonLearning experience, not just about governance in those countries, but about our methodology and appraochOne obvious lesson was that our core concepts – the principles of good gov, the actors/rules/practice framing, the four thematic issues we explore – really seem to resonated with diverse audiences and across different countries. This makes it a Valuable tool for communicating about forest governance and explaining the scope of the toolBut now to get to some of the challenges we faced….Being comprehensive isn’t easy. 94 indicators with 4-7 elements of quality. As some of you know firsthand, the tool is difficult to navigate, prioritize, and figure out where to start. Once you’ve done the full assessment, have an incredible wealth of data and information. How to distill and package it for targeted communication? The way we organized and laid out the indicators didn’t make any of this any easier.Pilots also reinforced what we already knew. Tailoring the assessment and indicators at the country level is essential. Adequately capturing country context and local issues requires detail and depth. GFI toolkit is meant to be adapted, but where to start and how to tailor?And of course, we discovered some methodological kinks that need to be ironed out. Some indicators were redundant, unclear or unfocused. Makes assessment and data collection difficult. And data collection is difficult regardless. Collecting concrete and objective evidence about governance is a somewhat novel concept. Each indicator required a research strategy and plan. Where can the data be found? How to get answers to sensitive questions?And finally, something we kept asking ourselves, was how to engage other users beyond our civil society partners. Many expressed need and interest in such a tool. But not always immediately obvious how they can use it to meet their needs.
Based on these reflections agreed on a set of core objectives for developing version 2.0.We want the tool to be easily and obviously adaptable. For our partners as they tailor the tool to their country context. But also want to appeal to a more diverse range of potential users, who may have different objectives when it comes to assessing governance, and therefore may need to employ a different assessment approaches.In order to be adaptable, the tool must have a more user-friendly and intuitive interface, so that it is easier to navigate and prioritize indicators according to specific objectives and needs, and to tell coherent and focused stories from the results.And of course underpinning all of this is ensuring that the methodology is robust and rigorous. At its core the real value-added and uniqueness of GFI is the evidence-based approach to governance assessment.
Seeking to revise version one along three lines.Improve organization to make more intuitive.Revise the indicators to address methodological issues identified by our partners. Make the indicators clearer and more focused overall.Develop improved guidance for each indicator.
Content is largely the same. Still assessing actors/rules/practices relative to five principles. Structure has undergone some major changes. Still organized the indicators under four thematic areas, although two of those areas have been slightly reframed. And within each thematic area, further organize indicators under 3-4 core thematic components.
Tenure hasn’t changedLand use planning has expanded to explore issues of coordination across sectors/ministries in addition to looking at the land use planning processForest management and forest revenues were merged, and then re-divided. Forest institutions captures many of the indicators that directly assess the transparency and accountability of actors and the inclusiveness of decision making processes. Forest management addresses the practice questions about the effectiveness of forest operations and implementation on the ground.
One other concept we are introducing to help improve the navigability is the concept of indicator tagging. Solves the problem that there’s not a single organizational structure to fit everyone’s needs.
Finalize in next few months, still work to be done on refining the indicators and developoing indicators specific guidance.
But one additional thought we’ve been having is whether or not it would be useful to develop a GFI Manual, which provides broader guidance on how to design, implement and use assessments. We have been thinking about this in response to the surge of interest and demand in governance assessment from so many different actors which very unique objectives.So….
So today we’re hoping to fuel our thinking about the manual by learning from your persepctive and experience. Identify common challenges we are facing and needs for better guidance.Compile these insights in