1. Revising the GFI Framework of
Indicators
Progress Update & Next Steps

2. lessons from the pilot phase
1. Organization of indicators is not intuitive
2. Lots of indicators, difficult to prioritize
3. Global indicators don’t always capture country
specific issues
4. Some indicators are redundant, vague, and/or
subjective

3. Revision Strategy
Improved Revised Indicators More Guidance
Organization
• When to assess
• Eliminate
redundancies & fill • What to assess
• Navigate & search
gaps • How to assess
• Prioritize & tailor
• Communicate results • Clear & focused
& tell stories diagnostic questions
• Objective EOQs

4. halfway there!
Improved Revised Indicators More Guidance
Organization
• When to assess
• Eliminate
redundancies & fill • What to assess
• Navigate & search
gaps • How to assess
• Prioritize & tailor
• Communicate results • Clear & focused
& tell stories questions diagnostic
• Objective EOQs

5. V1 – V2: what is the same?
• Content: Indicators still assess actors, rules &
practices with respect to the five principles of good
governance
• Organization: Indicators still grouped into four main
issue areas
• Indicator methodology: Indicators are still
composed of a diagnostic questions and 4-7
elements of quality

6. V1 – V2: what is different?
• Content: Minimal changes, eliminated
redundancies and filled gaps
• Organization:
– Reframed two of the four main issue areas
– Within each issue area, indicators organized under 3-4
“core components” instead of under actors, rules and
practices
• Indicator methodology:
– Clearer and more focused diagnostic questions and
EOQs
– Guidance for when, what, and how to assess each
indicator

7. Content: filling gaps
• Better balancing of rules & practice indicators
throughout the framework
• New indicators on “managing sector impacts
on forests”
• New indicators on “control of corruption”
• More indicators focusing on legislative
decision-making separate from executive
decision-making

8. Organization: four issue 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

9. Organization: “core components”
Tenure of Forest Forest Forest
Coordination of
Land and Institutions & Administration &
Land Use
Resources Decision-Making Enforcement
legal and policy
management of legislative &
community forest framework for
sector impacts on executive
tenure forest
forests decision-making
management
forest agency
private forest land use planning performance & forest
ownership processes control of administration
corruption
implementation
state forest forest sector forest law
of land use
ownership financial practices enforcement
polices/laws
dispute resolution civil society and
mechanisms the media

10. Organization: “sub-components”
Forest
Administration &
Enforcement
legal and policy
framework for
forest
management
forest
administration Legal basis for law
enforcement
forest law Detection of forest
enforcement crime
Prosecution of
forest crime

11. Organization: indicator tagging
• 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….

12. Comments? Questions?
• About content?
– Are there still redundancies?
– New sections on corruption and managing sector
impacts?
– Are law and practice adequately balanced?
• About organization?
– revised four issue areas?
– “components” and “sub-components” structure?

13. Methodology: more guidance
• When to assess: core vs. non-core
– Core: fundamental aspect of good governance that
should be assessed in all countries
– Non-Core: important aspect of good governance, but
not critical or first priority in most countries
• What to assess: picking the object of assessment
• How to assess: selecting research methods and
collecting evidence to answer the question
• Definitions

14. Discussion
Give feedback on draft guidance for
two indicators

15. Small Group Discussion: Core vs. Non-
Core
• Group instructions: break into four groups.
Two groups will discuss tenure, two groups
will discuss forest institutions. Take 20
minutes to label indicators as core or non-core
• Report back:
– How many core vs. non-core?
– Were any of the indicators difficult to label?

16. Small Group Discussion: terms &
definitions
• Group instructions: break into two groups. One
group will discuss land use, the other will discuss
forest management. Look through the indicators
and identify any ambiguous or confusing terms.
Try to remember the terms that gave you
difficulty during the assessment. Try to define the
terms.
• Report back: share the full list of terms you
developed. Explain which terms were particularly
challenging/confusing (e.g. because of different
country context) and how you defined them.

17. Next Steps: Your Feedback
• Inputs into drafting indicator guidance
• Inputs into revising elements of quality
• Comments on final draft

18. Exercises/Discussion
• Feedback & discussion on new organization
• Review draft indicators and provide feedback
(small groups or big group?)
• In small groups decide core vs. non-core for one
chapter
• Brainstorm terms that need definitions
• Discuss specific indicators
– Legal recognition of community tenure
– Protection of community tenure
– Vertical coordination in land use plans

19. Building a GFI identity
• What makes us unique? What characteristics
about GFI do we want to emphasize and
communicate?
• Do we want common branding? Logo? Website?
• What relationship between partners of different
countries? What information/experiences should
we need to share? How often? Through what
forums?
• What is the role of the global tool? What is the
role for country tailored tools? How do we
communicate the relationship between global
and national tools?

20. Role of the Global Tool
• Defines key terms
– Actors, rules, practices
– Transparency, accountability, participation,
coordination, capacity
• Sets standard of “comprehensiveness”
– Tenure, Land Use, Institutions/Decisions,
Management/Enforcement
• Establishes unique research methodology
– Indicators = diagnostic question + elements of quality
– Evidence-based research + triangulation of results
– Scoring?

21. Global vs National Tensions
• Is it necessary to have the same organization?
• When is it okay to not be comprehensive?
• When tailoring the diagnostic questions and
elements of quality, how much adjustment is
too much?
• Other concerns?