Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Similaire à GFI Toolkit v2.0
Similaire à GFI Toolkit v2.0 (20)
Plus de World Resources Institute (WRI)
Plus de World Resources Institute (WRI) (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
GFI Toolkit v2.0
- 2. Remembering version 1…. Core concepts 3 components 4 thematic 5 principles areas good governance of forests
- 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?
- 8. v2.0 Objectives easily user-friendly robust & adaptable & intuitive rigorous tool interface methodology
- 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?
Notes de l'éditeur
- 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