International Collaboration to Assess, Improve and Monitor the Quality of

Forest Governance

World Bank presentation at the 20th COFO Meeting, Oct., 6, 2010, Rome.

The PROFOR Program

• PROFOR is a multi-donor partnership program supported by 8 donors (EU, Finland, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Switzerland and UK)

• Characterized by a tightly focused program strongly aligned with its four core themes;

• Highly cost-effective mechanism for mobilizing leading edge analysis;

• Well-networked into global, regional and national fora;

• Flexible and able to respond quickly as new themes emerge.

PROFOR Knowledge Products

Costs of Poor Forest Governance

• Ecological: Unplanned and inappropriate deforestation, depletion of resources important to rural livelihoods and loss of ecosystem services

• Economic: Loss of billions of dollars annually in evaded taxes, illegal logging and other forest crimes

• Social: Human displacement, conflicts and violence and compromising the traditional rights and beliefs of forest dependent communities

• Political: Corruption contagion and loss of credibility of governments

The Life of a Log: Alchemy of Illegal to Legal

Local logger: $2.20$2.20 Local broker: $20$20 Foreign middle man: $160$160

Foreign lumber processor: $710$710Exporter of sawn timber: $800$800US trader: $1,000$1,000

From illegal to legalFrom illegal to legal

The Life of a Log: Preventing the Undesirable Alchemy

Satellite monitoring Local communities/third party monitor

Log Tracking system: timber cut for export vs.

exported lumber

IKEA Model: Procurement policy

International codes of conduct

Increase supply thru fast growing trees

Putting Forest Governance, Corruption and Illegal Logging Centre Stage

• 1998 — G8: Glen Eagles Summit • FLEG Ministerial Conferences

o 2001—Balio 2003—Yaoundeo 2005—St. Petersburgtriggered initiatives to control illegal logging and

improve forest governance • EU FLEGT action plan (2003)

New Demands and Opportunities to Address Forest Governance (1)

• REDD– good governance essential precondition for success– permanence of emission reductions– equitable distribution of benefits and costs– indigenous peoples rights

• Legality concerns– VPA, timber regulation (EU)– amended Lacey Act (USA)– emerging legislation (Australia)– China, Russia

• FIP– good governance critical to bringing about

transformational changes

New Demands and Opportunities to Address Forest Governance (2)

• Increasing stakeholder demand for good governance

• Increasing political will to tackle forest governance issues

Where Are we Now…10+ Years Hence

• Chatham House Report (2010): o significant reduction in illegal logging in Brazil,

Cameroon and Indonesia. o consuming countries were consuming 26% less than

they were at their peak in 2004o several successes but much remains to be done

• Recognition of the need for a systematic approach to forest governance reforms based on diagnosis, monitoring, assessment and reporting

Approaches to Forest Governance Assessments and Indicators

• Systematic approaches are being developed by: Chatham House, Global Witness, World Resources Institute, Transparency International, FAO-FRA and PROFOR/World Bank, Chatham House-UNREDD.

• Each designed with different objectives, users and applications in mind.

• Yet, they have a healthy commonality.

Example of similarities

World Bank Pillars of Good Forest Governance

UNREDD-CH Core Parameters of Forest Governance

WB1: Transparency, Accountability and Public Participation

UCH3: Transparent and accountable decision making institutions

WB2: Stability of Forest Institutions and Conflict Management

UCH3: Transparent and accountable decision making institutions

WB3: Quality of Forest Administration

UCH1: Clear and coherent policy, legal and regulatory frameworksUCH3: Transparent and accountable decision making institutions

Example of similarities cont…

World Bank Pillars of Good Forest Governance

UNREDD-CH Core Parameters of Forest Governance

WB4: Coherence of Forest Legislation and Rule of Law

CH1: Clear and coherent policy, legal and regulatory frameworksCH2: Effective implementation, enforcement and compliance

WB5: Economic Efficiency, Equity and Incentives

XX

Source: Capistrano, 2010 (unpublished)

FAO-PROFOR Symposium: Overall Objectives

• Share experiences across initiatives developing practical and feasible frameworks for assessing and monitoring the quality of forest governance.

• Foster collaboration to avoid overlap and duplication of effort and explore the possibility of developing a common framework of monitoring forest governance.

• Initiate dialogue with client countries regarding their needs and requirements.

Emerging Consensus (1): International and National Requirements

• International requirements– legality, REDD, etc.

• Domestic governance reform pressures– decentralization– land tenure– accountable and responsive government

• Foreseeable national level diagnostic and monitoring needs differ

Emerging Consensus (2): Different Applications

• Diagnostics vs. tracking/monitoring: different degrees of engagement, scales of ambition and time needed

• Tracking trends within countries (not comparing countries)

• Content applications (certification, legality, REDD, etc.): performance measures

• Different stakeholder and countries have different needs

• Keep it simple – a very few basic indicators, ‘good enough’

Emerging Consensus (3): Coherence

• Useful to increase efficiency and avoid duplication of efforts

• Core sets of common principles and criteria useful to link indicators with outcomes and increase transparency

• Coherence on terminology• Specific indicators should be developed at

the country level to measure progress

Way Forward

• FAO and WB to lead a core group of experts to develop a common framework of principles and criteria for forest governance. Stocktaking of progress envisaged for Spring 2011.

• Continue engagement and promote dialogue on governance issues in FLEGT-VPA, REDD+ and FIP activities.

• Strengthen the demand for good governance as essential to SFM, especially in countries not targeted by REDD+, FIP and VPAs (Europe and Central Asia).

THANK YOU

www.profor.info