Date post: | 11-Jul-2015 |
Category: |
Education |
Upload: | world-resources-institute-wri |
View: | 286 times |
Download: | 1 times |
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?