Revising the GFI Framework of Indicators

Revising the GFI Framework of Indicators

Progress Update & Next Steps

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

Revision Strategy

Improved Organization

• Navigate & search

• Prioritize & tailor

• Communicate results & tell stories

Revised Indicators

• Eliminate redundancies & fill gaps

• Clear & focused diagnostic questions

• Objective EOQs

More Guidance

• When to assess

• What to assess

• How to assess

halfway there!

Improved Organization

• Navigate & search

• Prioritize & tailor

• Communicate results & tell stories

Revised Indicators

• Eliminate redundancies & fill gaps

• Clear & focused questions diagnostic

• Objective EOQs

More Guidance

• When to assess

• What to assess

• How to assess

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

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

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

Organization: four issue areas

Forest Tenure

Land Use Planning

Forest Management

Forest Revenues & Incentives

Tenure of Forest Land and Resources

Coordination of Land Use

Forest Institutions & Decision-Making

Forest Management & Enforcement

Organization: “core components”Tenure of Forest

Land and Resources

community forest tenure

private forest ownership

state forest ownership

dispute resolution mechanisms

Coordination of Land Use

management of sector impacts on

forests

land use planning processes

implementation of land use

polices/laws

Forest Institutions &

Decision-Making

legislative & executive

decision-making

forest agency performance &

control of corruption

forest sector financial practices

civil society and the media

Forest Administration &

Enforcement

legal and policy framework for

forest management

forest administration

forest law enforcement

Organization: “sub-components”

Forest Administration &

Enforcement

legal and policy framework for

forest management

forest administration

forest law enforcement

Legal basis for law enforcement

Detection of forest crime

Prosecution of forest crime

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….

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?

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

Discussion

Give feedback on draft guidance for two indicators

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?

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.

Next Steps: Your Feedback

• Inputs into drafting indicator guidance

• Inputs into revising elements of quality

• Comments on final draft

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

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?

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?

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?