Using Criteria and Indicators (C&I) for
Sustainable Forest Management (SFM):
a way to strengthen results-based governance of
national forest programmes (NFPs)
Draft 3.1 - version 25 April 2016
Authors:
Cecilia Julve Larrubia
Forestry Expert, international consultant
Kimberly Ross
International development consultant
specializing in organizational development and results-based management (RBM)
Bernhard Wolfslehner
Head of Central-East and South-East European Regional Office, European Forest Institute (EFI)
Richard Guldin
Senior Research Fellow, Society of American Foresters
Ewald Rametsteiner
Head of the Forest Governance Unit, Forestry Department at
the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
….
Coordination
Ewald Rametsteiner
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the
expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or
concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of
manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or
recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.
© FAO 2016
FAO encourages the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Except where
otherwise indicated, material may be copied, downloaded and printed for private study, research and teaching
purposes, or for use in non-commercial products or services, provided that appropriate acknowledgement of FAO
as the source and copyright holder is given and that FAO’s endorsement of users’ views, products or services is
not implied in any way.
All requests for translation and adaptation rights, and for resale and other commercial use rights should be made
via www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request or addressed to copyright@fao.org.
FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/publications) and can be purchased
through publications-sales@fao.org.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. i
Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................................................... ii
Summary ............................................................................................................................... iii
I.
II.
Introduction ..................................................................................................................1
A.
Background ................................................................................................................................................ 1
B.
Purpose and Content .............................................................................................................................. 2
Overview of how C&I can strengthen RBM in NFPs .........................................2
A.
Introduction to Results-Based Management ................................................................................. 2
B.
Explanation of C&I, as an RBM tool.................................................................................................... 6
a) Definitions and Rationale for C&I ....................................................................................................................... 6
b) Relevance of C&I to National Forest Programmes (NFPs) ....................................................................... 7
c) Types and Examples of C&I ................................................................................................................................... 8
C.
Use of C&I in the different stages of Results-Based Management ........................................ 11
a) Strategic Planning (Design) stage.................................................................................................................... 11
b) Operational Planning stage ................................................................................................................................ 13
c) Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) stage .................................................................................. 13
III. Experiences using C&I for SFM to promote results-based policy
formulation, planning, and M&E in the forest sector ........................................... 14
A.
SFM C&I in the “Strategic planning” phase: Initial Stakeholder Consultation ................. 15
a) A1 - Participatory approaches facilitate stakeholder engagement. .................................................. 16
b) A2 - Integrating C&I into National Forest Programmes (NFPs) can enhance RBM. ................... 19
c) A3 - C&I must be part of an M&E system with adequate funding. ..................................................... 21
B.
SFM C&I in the “Operational Planning” phase ............................................................................. 25
a) B1 - C&I should be adapted to the national/sub-national context yet aligned with C&I from
various forest-related initiatives at different levels. ........................................................................................ 25
b) B2 – A vital number of indicators should be developed at each level in the results chain. ..... 29
c) B3 – Results-oriented budgeting can encourage a focus on performance and ensure that
resources are adequately allocated for achieving desired outputs. .......................................................... 32
C.
SFM C&I in the “Monitor, Evaluate and Learn” phase: using C&I .......................................... 35
a) C1 - C&I are only as good as their data collection/management systems. ..................................... 35
b) C2 - Using C&I for monitoring and reporting in a strategic way can enhance evidence-based
decision-making during implementation. ............................................................................................................ 37
c) C3 - Learning from the evidence generated from C&I can lead to improved future
programming.................................................................................................................................................................... 39
IV. Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 40
A.
Main Challenges to strengthen the use of C&I in NFP to enhance RBM .............................. 40
a) Demonstrate and communicate the added value of using C&I for SFM .......................................... 41
b) Promote leadership and ownership through inclusive participation in NFP and C&I
development ..................................................................................................................................................................... 41
c) Provide adequate funding for implementation and M&E of NFPs ..................................................... 41
d) Simplify and harmonize C&I for SFM ............................................................................................................. 42
e) Ensure effective and innovative data management ................................................................................. 42
f)
Facilitate a cross-sectorial, landscape approach ....................................................................................... 42
g) Reinforce capacity building and feedback ................................................................................................... 42
B.
V.
Outlook and Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 43
Annexes ....................................................................................................................... 44
A.
References and Further Reading...................................................................................................... 44
B.
Strengthening forest sustainability indicators – roadmap WFC 2015 ............................... 48
C.
Glossary of Terms .................................................................................................................................. 50
D.
Additional information on RBM ....................................................................................................... 52
a) Further explanation of RBM terminology and concepts ........................................................................ 52
b) Principles of RBM ................................................................................................................................................... 53
c) Overview of the Logical Framework Approach (LFA) ............................................................................ 55
E.
Map of Resources (expert interviews, country case studies, etc.) ....................................... 57
Acknowledgements
A number of organizations have been involved in the preparation of this document. These include: the
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), European Forest Institute (EFI),
International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), Central African Forest Commission (COMIFAC),
Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization (OTCA), Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), …
We would like to express our gratitude to the FAO regional experts for their support in documenting
information about the uses of Criteria and Indicators (C&I) for Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) in
Africa, Asia, Near East and North Africa and Latin America, namely: Atse Yapi, François Hiol Hiol, Peter
Gondo, Thang Hooi Chiew, Fady Asmar and Jorge Malleux. A wide range of experts and practitioners
reviewed the draft text and provided valuable inputs, as well. We recognize the support provided by:
Kit Prins, Jorge Meza, Juan Herrero Echevarría, Carla Ramirez, xxxx.
Appreciation also goes to many government bodies, academic institutions, C&I regional processes and
individuals that provide useful information for this practical guide. We are heavily indebted to all the
participants of the C&I workshops held in Italy (Rome, January 2015), Philippines (Manila, April 2015),
Cameroon (Douala, May 2015), Egypt (Cairo, June 2015), Peru (Tarapoto, June 2015), Canada (Ottawa,
May 2016) and especially to those who conducted a presentation. We would also like to thank the
participants of the Side event organized at the World Forestry Congress held in South Africa (Durban,
September 2015).
This practical guide was undertaken in the framework of the project “Strengthening Criteria and
Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management and their use in forest policy and practice” (2014-2016),
coordinated by FAO with funding from the German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture.
i
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ASEAN
ATO
C&I
CIFOR
COMIFAC
EBDM
EFI
EU
FAO
FLEGT
FRA
GDP
ITTO
LFA
MEL
M&E
MDG
MoV
MPWG
NBSAP
NFI
NFP
NGO
NOA
OECD
OTCA
PEFC
RBM
REDD+
SDG
SFM
SMART
UN
UNCCD
UNFF
UNDG
UNDP
Association of South East Asian Nations
African Timber Organization
Criteria and Indicators
Center for International Forestry Research
Central African Forest Commission
Evidence-Based Decision-Making
European Forest Institute
European Union
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (of the European Union)
Forest Resources Assessment (of FAO)
Gross Domestic Product
International Tropical Timber Organization
Logical Framework Approach
Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning
Monitoring and Evaluation
Millennium Development Goal
Means of Verification
Montréal Process Working Group on the Conservation and Sustainable Management of
Temperate and Boreal Forests
National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
National Forest Inventory
National Forest Programme
Non-Governmental Organization
National Orientation Agency
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization
Program for the Endorsement of Forest Certification
Results-Based Management
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation
Sustainable Development Goal
Sustainable Forest Management
Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound
United Nations
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
United Nations Forum on Forests
United Nations Development Group
United Nations Development Program
ii
Summary
Criteria and indicators (C&I) have emerged as a powerful tool in promoting sustainable forest
management (SFM). Since the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development of Rio in
1992, several different international processes and initiatives have developed C&I as a framework for
SFM. Use of C&I can provide structure and facilitate a common understanding of SFM at the national
level. In addition, C&I can help to promote agreement on key issues, create a link to data/results needs
and resources required, serve as a reference framework for policy planning and programming, and
facilitate the monitoring of results.
Also developed in the follow-up of the ‘92 Rio Summit, National Forest Programmes (NFPs) are a
generic concept encompassing a wide range of approaches to SFM applicable in all countries and to all
types of forests. Integrating C&I into NFP provides a solid basis for enhancing Results-Based
Management (RBM) in the forest sector. The recent adoption of Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) is
an opportunity to strengthen the combined use of C&I and NFP to promote sustainability in the post2015 development agenda.
This practical publication aims to promote the use of C&I to strengthen RBM in forest policy design,
planning and monitoring, ultimately to improve SFM. Based on highly consultative processes in the four
corners of the world and with more than 30 practical examples, this document discusses how to
improve the use of C&I and their integration in NFP and other frameworks for SFM.
It offers 9 important points to consider at different stages of the RBM cycle:
A. Strategic Planning stage:



A1: A participatory approach can facilitate stakeholder engagement.
A2: Integrating C&I into NFP can strengthen SFM.
A3: C&I must be part of a M&E system with adequate funding.
B. Operational Planning stage:



B1: C&I should be adapted to the national/subnational context yet aligned with C&I from
various forest-related initiatives at different levels.
B2: A vital number of indicators should be developed at each level in the results chain.
B3: Results-oriented budgeting can encourage a focus on performance and ensure that
resources are adequately allocated for achieving desired outputs.
C. Monitoring, Evaluation & Learning stage:



C1: C&I are only as good as their data collection/management systems.
C2: Using C&I for monitoring and reporting in a strategic way can enhance EBDM during
implementation.
C3: Learning from evidence generated from C&I can lead to improved future programming and
policy.
This guide also mentions a number of significant challenges that should be addressed in order to
strengthen the use of C&I for SFM, such as the simplification and harmonization of C&I, the promotion
of a cross-sectorial and landscape approach, and the importance of capacity development and feedback
loops, among others. Finally, it proposes steps to further develop and adapt existing C&I as well as
enhance their use.
iii
I. Introduction
A. Background
Forests and forest resources provide livelihoods for more than a billion people1, and forest-related
services and benefits are multifaceted and wide‐ranging. However, forest biodiversity is increasingly
threatened as a result of deforestation, fragmentation, climate change and other stressors. There is
therefore an evident need for systems that foster Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) and embrace
the broad array of values and interests of different stakeholders vis-à-vis forests.
In order to make progress in SFM, there is a growing need for active public involvement in forestry
decision-making as well as for streamlined, systematic and more results-oriented approaches to
measuring and reporting upon progress and results in SFM. Results-based Management (RBM) – a
management strategy that focuses on improving performance in terms of results – provides a model for
doing just that. It can facilitate SFM by providing frameworks and tools for defining realistic expected
results, assessing risk, monitoring progress, reporting on performance, and integrating lessons learned
into management decisions related to forest governance.
Criteria and Indicators (C&I) are potentially powerful RBM instruments for promoting and
demonstrating progress towards sustainability as well as for ensuring a common understanding of the
wide range of social, ecological and economic elements that collectively capture the range of values that
forests have and provide2. Results frameworks containing C&I can help to organize and transmit
existing information, identify gaps in knowledge, and structure the gathering of new information to feed
back into forest management and policy-making frameworks. A number of sets of C&I have already
been developed around the world to evaluate the achievement of SFM at different levels; and many
countries are producing national reports that assess their progress toward SFM.
One of the main avenues for C&I implementation has been observed in their advanced use within
National Forest Programmes (NFPs)3. The NFP is the first commonly agreed framework in pursuit of
SFM that is applicable to all countries and to all types of forests. The term ‘NFP’ is a generic expression
for a wide range of approaches towards SFM based on a common set of guiding principles. These
principles can be organized in 3 main clusters: 1/national sovereignty and country leadership; 2/
consistency within and integration beyond the forest sector; and 3/ participation and partnership.4
In this context, C&I help streamline terminologies and concepts into national and subnational
negotiations on what SFM means in specific contexts. C&I and NFP are mutually reinforcing and,
together, provide a solid basis for applying RBM approaches to SFM. Numerous countries have
experience in incorporating C&I into NFP, in order to track and report upon NFP implementation and
results. C&I are also being used to structure and stipulate a process for agreeing on common goals and
development programs, and to help shape policies at national level5.
However, little is known about how this uptake of C&I is managed, controlled, and revised in order to
be compliant with the concepts phases delineated by RBM. Against this background, coupling C&I and
NFP more systematically has the potential to reinforce RBM in countries, as that is the level where SFM
implementation actually starts to happen.
http://www.fao.org/forestry/sfm/en/
http://www.fao.org/forestry/ci/en/
3 EFI 2013
4 FAO 2006
5 EFI 2013
1
2
1
This is also reflected in recent global events, such as the adoption of Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs)6 or the more recent Paris Agreement7, which are pushing the entire world towards more
“results-based” governance. These provide opportunities to promote the use of C&I and NFP – both of
which are already well known to the forestry community – and to enhance their full potential to
improve SFM.
B. Purpose and Content
The case studies and examples presented in this publication were gathered and synthetized by the
“Strengthening C&I for SFM and their use in forest policy and practice” project (2014-2016)8. After
extensive worldwide consultations, an agreed vision to strengthen the use of C&I was proposed9. One of
the actions suggested was to provide broad access to experiences and lessons learned using C&I for
SFM – and that led to the creation of this present publication.
The purpose of this publication is to provide Forest Administrations at national and sub-national levels
with practical examples and tips regarding the use of C&I for SFM, based on a results-oriented
approach. This information should help to introduce and/or strengthen results-based multi-year
programming, planning and related monitoring at national and sub-national levels.
The publication is addressed to all those interested in using C&I to promote SFM in the forest sector,
though it is particularly geared toward the national and sub-national authorities responsible for the
design and planning of NFP as well as for implementation, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and
reporting of progress towards SFM. Other actors in the forest sector – including international and
national non-governmental organizations (NGOs), forest managers and parties responsible for
achieving SFM related results, as well as the private sector – may also find the publication useful.
II. Overview of how C&I can strengthen RBM in NFPs
A. Introduction to Results-Based Management
Over the last few decades, there has been a growing interest in results among multilateral development
institutions, governments and other international development actors. This has predominantly been a
product of two related developments10. The first was the development of global development goals,
which started in the mid-1990s and culminated in the endorsement of the Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs) in September 2000 by all 189 United Nations states. The second was the effort to improve
public sector performance in member states of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD), which led to many public sector agencies at country level adopting RBM
principles, practices and tools11. The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness12 in March 2005 reinforced
the focus on results by citing ‘Managing for Results’ among the five main pillars of aid effectives. The
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgs
https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf
8 http://www.fao.org/forestry/ci/88504/en
9 http://www.fao.org/forestry/ci/90348/en/ and Annex B
10 Flint M (2003). Easier said than done: A review of Results-Based Management in Multilateral Development Institutions. Available at:
www.parcinfo.org/documents/Results Based Management/Review of RBM in Multilateral Development Institutions - 2003.doc
11 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Improving Public Sector Efficiency: Challenges and Opportunities, 2007.
Available at: http://www.oecd.org/gov/budgeting/43412680.pdf
12 Source: OECD (2005) Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. Available at: www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/41/34428351.pdf.
6
7
2
subsequent Accra Agenda for Action13 (in September 2008) also emphasized the importance of
delivering results that will have real and measurable impact on development.
More recently, at the Rio+20 Summit in June 2012, member states agreed to create a set of universal
and integrated SDGs. Following their adoption by the UN in 2015, it is expected that these high-level
goals will stimulate action in support of the three dimensions of sustainable development – economic,
social and environmental – over the next 15 years14. This further emphasized the importance of going
beyond inputs and activities, to track and analyze results.
Box 1. Forest-related Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
SDG #15, “Life on Land,” is the goal that is most pertinent to the forestry sector. It aims to “protect, restore and promote
sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land
degradation and halt biodiversity loss”. SFM will be an important strategy for achieving this goal.
Because of the multi-functionality of forests, SFM also contributes to basic securities such food, water, energy and health, thus
contributing to improved livelihoods conditions. Given the many linkages between forests and other sectors, SFM is key to
sustainable development in general. Therefore, its relevance to the SDGs clearly goes far beyond SDG #15 and participates to
other SDG such as SDG #1 “No Poverty”, SDG #2 “Zero Hunger”, SDG #6 “Clean Water and Sanitation”, SDG #7 “Affordable and
Clean energy”, SDG #8 “Decent Work and Economic Growth”, SDG #12 “Responsible Consumption and Production” and SDG
#13 “Climate Action”, among others. (Source: http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/)
It is now generally recognized that, in order to address current priority needs, stakeholders must have a
clear and commonly established vision of the direction in which they want to head and of the changes
that they want to bring about. They must also be able to respond quickly and appropriately to
challenges and opportunities, in an efficient and cost-effective manner. RBM is a management strategy
focusing on performance and achievement of results, which has evolved to achieve these aims. It
consists of set of principles, approaches, and tools that can enable more effective planning,
management, monitoring, and learning by:




facilitating multi-stakeholder involvement in designing and planning for results-oriented
interventions (whether at high level or grassroots level), to ensure that we all are clear on the
common results we want to achieve;
helping to develop and act on strategies to mitigate risk and achieve those results, while striving for
efficiencies and good value for money;
ensuring accountability and a line of sight toward the desired impacts, intermediate outcomes and
measurable outputs during management and implementation of those interventions; and
promoting systematic use of lessons drawn from monitoring and evaluation, to make evidencebased decisions and informed programmatic adjustments as well as to benefit future policies and
programs.
RBM principles and tools – including the well-known Logical Framework Approach – are widely
recognized and applied by development agencies and governments alike. In the context of the forest
sector, RBM involves robust monitoring, review, and evaluation procedures and tools for validating and
measuring progress towards SFM as well as for analyzing the information that is collected and applying
it to decision-making and future programming.
The Accra Agenda for Action (OECD 2008) is the product of an unprecedented alliance: more than 80 developing countries, all OECD donors
and some 3 000 civil society organizations from around the world joined representatives of emerging economies, United Nations and
multilateral institutions and global funds in the negotiations leading up to and taking place during the Accra meeting. Available at:
http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/45827311.pdf
14 Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
13
3
RBM is first and foremost characterized by a focus on results over inputs and activities15. This is not to
suggest that activities are not important; it simple means that one should constantly keep a line of sight
on the desired changes – i.e., the intended results – while designing, implementing and conducting
M&E of an NFP or any kind of intervention. While the exact terminology used by different institutions
may differ, it is generally agreed that “results” are the outputs, outcome(s) and impact that a program,
project or policy aims to bring about. Impact represents the ultimate, longer-term goal; outcomes are
the medium-term objectives; and outputs can be considered the shorter-term deliverables or
intermediate changes resulting from the activities.
Fundamental to these concepts is the “results chain,” which articulates the “Theory of Change” or “logic
model” on which the program is based. As shown in Figure 1, each level in the results chain (from
inputs to impact) should have a clear, plausible and logical cause-and-effect relationship with both
the preceding and succeeding levels. In other words, the basic logic is that:



the implementation of planned activities leads to delivery of a set of outputs;
together, the expected outputs result in the attainment of the intended outcome; and
the achievement of the intended outcome contributes to the desired impact16.
Figure 1. Results Chain 17
Of course, in order for such causal effects to occur, certain external conditions must hold true. These
assumptions inherent in the logical relationships should be specified in the results framework or
“LogFrame.” Understanding the relationships, such as how outcomes are created by outputs, is very
important. The first step is to identify the mechanism (logic model/results chain) by which an output
creates an outcome—both positive and negative simultaneously (e.g., increased fuelwood harvesting
According the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
Flint M (2003). op cit
17 Adapted from: (1) United Nations Development Program (UNDP). Handbook on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating for Development Results,
page 55, available at http://web.undp.org/evaluation/handbook/documents/english/pme-handbook.pdf; and (2) United Nations
Development Group (UNDG). Results-Based Management Handbook: Harmonizing RBM concepts and approaches for improved development
results at country level, October 2011, page 14, available at: https://undg.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/UNDG-RBM-Handbook-2012.pdf
15
16
4
can both improve public health (e.g., cooked food is more digestible therefore more nutritious) and
adversely affect public health (e.g., wood fuel burned in stoves that are not air-tight puts fumes and
smoke into the kitchen that can cause asthma/pulmonary issues, particularly in young children). The
next step in defining the Theory of Change is to articulate and document the underlying assumptions
essential for the model to be valid (e.g., stoves used are NOT air-tight; cooking occurs in a confined
space).
In addition to the notion of causality and related assumptions, the other key concept reflected in the
results chain (and shown in Figure 1) is that of attribution, which is a term that is largely
misunderstood and often a cause of concern for development professionals. The idea is that the higher
in the results chain, the less control the program or project has and the less attribution it can claim for
having directly brought about the observed changes. In this regard, it is generally recognized that a
program or project can only contribute to the desired impact, and that attaining high-level development
goals requires partnerships and the combined efforts of multiple programs and projects.
The concept of logic modeling takes a recursive approach—beginning at the end (impact) and working
backwards (to activities), asking the following questions in this order:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
What is the ultimate goal, i.e., desired impact, do we want to achieve through this program?
What are the objectives, i.e., intended outcomes, that will contribute to that impact?
What specific deliverables or program outputs are necessary to bring about the outcomes?
What activities must be conducted in order to deliver the expected outputs?
What human and financial resources, i.e. inputs, are needed to implement the planned activities?
The recursive thinking that goes into logic modeling may identify critical missing pieces or gaps that are
essential to securing the outcomes and impact desired. In this situation, the concern is less about
attribution and more about clearly describing the output needed—and the management activities and
resources needed to produce the output—that will fill critical gap. Experience has shown that the logicmodeling approach encourages deeper thinking about the causes and effects, so that RBM becomes a
more holistic exercise.
Logic modeling emerged conceptually in the scientific literature about program evaluation in the
1980s18 and has spread since then to many different fields from public health and education to natural
resource management to governance. A key distinction of logic modeling is that it is a recursive
modeling approach, which begins with the desired impact and outcomes clearly described—ideally
through a participative, consensus-building process—and then works backwards: from the outputs
needed to bring about the desired outcomes; through to the activities needed to generate the outputs;
and finally to the resources needed to enable and empower the management activities. It also
recognizes that there are social and political resources that need to be created and deployed at each
step in the process, along with human and financial resources. In summary, logic modelling – and RBM
in general – shifts the focus from what is being done to what needs to be done to achieve the desired
results. Logic modeling is currently used by many government organizations as well as by commercial
firms and other non-governmental; it is essentially the approach used for creating any type of results
framework, including LogFrames.
In practical terms, RBM requires that design, planning and implementations should be geared towards
clearly describing the desirable impacts and outcomes sought and tracking progress towards them—
the results—not just towards ensuring that all activities are implemented as planned. While the inputs
and activities of each institution or department are very important, they must always be seen as being
18
Wholey, 1983 and 1987; Rush and Ogborne, 1996; Corbeil, 1986; and Weiss, 1997.
5
in support of national development efforts, which aim to improve the country situation and bring about
positive changes to people’s lives.
Understanding and applying these concepts is critical for developing, managing and monitoring resultsoriented programs. Ensuring that a program is designed on the basis of strong results chain will help to
ensure that it effectively addresses the problem that it was designed to address.
B. Explanation of C&I, as an RBM tool
a) Definitions and Rationale for C&I
As instruments of choice for applying RBM principles and approaches to programming and policy work
in the forest sector, C&I have the potential to strengthen RBM in NFPs and, in turn, improve SFM. C&I
have a broad field of application, ranging from facilitating agreement on common definitions used in
communication and debate, to providing a framework for program design and implementation, to
strengthening provision of information and reporting, to clarifying assumptions made about how the
results chain functions, to enabling the capture of evidence and information on issues and benefits to
society.
Box 2. Definitions of Criteria and Indicators (C&I) for Sustainable Forest Management (SFM)
Criteria define and characterize the essential elements or conditions against which SFM should be assessed, with due
consideration paid to the productive, protective and social roles of forests and forest ecosystems. Each criterion relates to a key
element of sustainability, and may be described by one or more indicators. They represent core values or management
goals/objectives set forth in an NFP or other initiative.
Indicators are variables or parameters that enable the measurement of a particular dimension of a criterion. They help monitor
the status and changes of forests in quantitative, qualitative and/or descriptive terms that reflect important attributes or
dimensions of the criterion, as seen by those who defined each criterion. Indicators that are tracked and reported upon over
time can reveal trends with respect to achieving the core value represented by each criterion.
For example, the first criterion of the Montréal Process Working Group on the Conservation and Sustainable Management of
Temperate and Boreal Forests (MPWG), “Conserve biological diversity,” expresses a core value or desired result of the
participating countries. The 3 subareas—ecological diversity, species diversity, and genetic diversity—each have three
indicators that measure dimensions of the core value. The desired changes will most often be defined in terms of “moving the
needle” in one direction or the other in one or more of these 9 indicators.
There is a growing recognition of the important role that C&I play as a way to strengthen RBM in NFPs,
by promoting more sustainable forest management practices while taking into consideration the social,
economic, environmental, cultural and spiritual needs of different stakeholders. C&I are useful in many
contexts and at different levels, including global, regional, national and local levels. They are applicable
to: policy dialogue; multi-year planning; strengthening practices; communication; and monitoring,
assessment and reporting on sustainability. In particular, the systematic integration of forest-related
sustainability C&I has proven useful for:
1. Policy dialogue and planning (policy or strategy development, multi-year plans and action
programs, budget allocation);
2. Guiding implementation of policies, plans and programs by administrations (guidance, rules,
selection criteria, other);
3. Guiding and structuring sector-specific or integrated sustainability assessments and reporting (e.g.
environment, energy, climate change, agriculture, sustainable land management);
4. Guiding forest management practice (e.g. planning, implementation, monitoring, assessing,
reporting, investment decisions for natural and planted forests, agroforestry, provision of nontimber forest products and services, etc.);
5. Guiding and structuring data collection and monitoring on forests, forest management and use or
sustainability aspects; and
6. Developing and applying sustainability certification principles, standards and indicators.
6
b) Relevance of C&I to National Forest Programmes (NFPs)
National or subnational policy frameworks on forests – along with their management plans – aim to
guide decision-making and provide a clear sense of direction over time. Following the Rio Earth Summit
in 1992, the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests provided a setting for countries to debate and formally
recognize the importance of a comprehensive forest policy framework for achieving SFM. During the
three years of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests, countries agreed on a common approach known
as NFPs and adopted a set of principles designed to guide NFP development and implementation19.
Today, NFP processes are under way in more than 130 countries20. A NFP is more than just a product –
it is a process, in that its development should be holistic, integrated, participatory, and iterative.
Together, with national forest policy and forestry-related legislation, the NFP constitutes the basis for
SFM at country level.
Box 3. What is a National Forest Program?
The term “national forest program” does not refer to one specific program. It actually incorporates a wide range of approaches
that can contribute to the formulation, planning and implementation of forest policy at national and subnational levels. As one
of the most important outcomes of international forest policy dialogue, this means that NFPs are applicable to all countries and
to all types of forests. [Source: FAO @ http://www.fao.org/forestry/nfp/en/]
C&I are a potentially important instrument for shaping NFP processes and giving them an operational
approach to defining goals, measuring progress and access, and conveying key messages in the context
of SFM. It has been observed that C&I serve as a reference for many SFM-related policies and are
perceived as safeguarding a normative and comprehensive framework for multifunctional forest
management. By means of this implicit normative power of the SFM concept, there has been increased
political commitment to accept and support RBM and to integrate C&I into national policy instruments.
For instance, the concept of C&I is already included in many NFPs; and in some cases, C&I have been
integrated into national legislative and/or policy instruments21.
While this suggests that RBM are partially applied in NFPs in practice, there are some major challenges
and obstacles to prove this true. First, amongst the various sets of C&I being used, there is a strong
focus on biophysical and economic indicators, which are often proposed by leading forestry
stakeholders. This may result in biases towards resource indicators, and underrepresentation of social
indicators, for instance. It further seems that C&I processes in NFP are often shaped by specific
stakeholder interests rather than demands for balance and comprehensiveness22. On the other hand,
there are potential conflicts among land users, land-use forms, environmental and societal interests;
and these trade-offs are not explicitly addressed by C&I because they often tend to be a collection of
parameters23. Injecting a real RBM logic into NFPs requires a systemic approach to SFM, which allows
for assessing the interlinkages in a socio-ecological system, and the causal effects between inputs,
actions, and outputs of forest policies and management24.
As per the United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/62/98 2007 on a “Non-legally binding instrument on all types of forests”.
Source: Website of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) on “National Forest Programs,” available at
http://www.fao.org/forestry/nfp/en/
20 As per the Global Forest Resources Assessment (FRA) 2010, produced by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), a
total of 178 countries and areas reported on NFPs. Almost three-quarters of these (74 percent, 131 countries) stated that they had an NFP as
of 2008. Source: http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/fra2010/en/
21 Canada and Australia, for example, have incorporated the Montréal Process C&I as mandatory data collection and reporting mechanisms.
Canada has recently published its 25th anniversary edition of “The State of Canada’s Forests: 2015” (https://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/series/read/90).
22 European Forest Institute (EFI), 2013.
23 Grainger, 2012
24 Wolfslehner and Vacik, 2011
19
7
c) Types and Examples of C&I
The wider forestry community has often struggled to define ‘sustainability’ in the context of SFM. To
address this, C&I offer a framework for characterizing the essential components of SFM and recognizing
forests as ecosystems that provide a wide range of environmental, economic and social benefits to
society. In fact, seven common thematic areas (or criteria) of SFM have emerged based on the criteria of
the nine (9) ongoing regional and international C&I initiatives.25 They were acknowledged by the
international forest community at the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) and have been adopted
in 2007 by the UN General Assembly in the Non-Legally Binding Instrument on All Types of Forests.
These thematic areas (or criteria) are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Extent of forest resources
Biological diversity
Forest health and vitality
Productive functions and forest resources
Protective functions of forest resources
Socio-economic functions
Legal, policy and institutional framework.
Through several years of cooperative work amongst leaders of FAO’s 2015 Global Forest Resources
Assessment (FRA), Forest Europe, the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), and the
Montréal Process Working Group (MPWG), a consolidated and consistent set of criteria and indicators
were defined for the 2015 FRA and its Collaborative Forest Resources Questionnaire26. This led to a
globally consistent set of data for the 2015 FRA that were based on the criteria above.
Another example of key criteria relevant to SFM is the three pillars of sustainability: (1)
environmental; (2) social; and (3) economic. In this regard, sustainable forest management means the
environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial, and economically viable management of forests for
present and future generations. In other words, SFM is “The stewardship and use of forests and forest
lands in a way, and at a rate, that maintains their biodiversity, productivity, regeneration capacity,
vitality and their potential to fulfill, now and in the future, relevant ecological, economic and social
functions, at local, national, and global levels, and that does not cause damage to other ecosystems.”27
A number of sets of indicators have also been developed worldwide, to guide and evaluate the
achievement of SFM at different levels. They cover aspects ranging from policy, to management, to
implementation; and policy indicators have even translated into practical guidance and assessment
tools that all share a common reference and principles. Examples are found, for instance, in the toolkit
of the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), which applies a multi-stage development of
C&I28, and in the development of C&I for a Forest Management Unit based on the Pan-European C&I and
SFM guidelines29.
Drawing from existing C&I sets may help national decision-makers and forest administrations to
implement more results-oriented SFM and to gather evidence of NFPs’ outcomes and impact (as
required by RBM). Most of the regional C&I processes have customized C&I to their regional needs.
Examples include the C&I of the Lepaterique Process for Central America30, the C&I of the Tarapoto
Website of the C&I Project in Europe - “Implementing Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management in Europe,” by the
European Forestry Institute (EFI), available at http://www.ci-sfm.org/.
26 See the terms and definitions for the CFRQ used for the 2015 FRA at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4808e.pdf
27 Definition adopted at the "Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe". MCPFE.org. Retrieved 30 November2011.
28 Mendoza and Prabhu, 2000a
29 Wolfslehner et al., 2005
30 http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/ac135e/ac135e07.htm
25
8
Process for Amazonian forests31, and cooperative work by the African Timber Organization and ITTO32.
These existing sets of C&I have substantial value because of their regional specificity and their links to
the global set used for FRA.
A key challenge is to ensure that indicators are developed at all levels in the results chain, i.e. from
outputs to outcomes to impact. A common weakness in many existing C&I sets is that they mainly
pertain to activities and, to a certain extent, outputs. In order to maintain a strong results focus, it is
critical that C&I also enable measurement of higher-level results, i.e. outcomes and impact. Research
suggests that focusing on and building consensus over outcomes during public engagement has been
more helpful in the long run than a focus on increasing/decreasing/changing outputs33. This is because
outputs typically represent a specific program or partners’ deliverables and therefore participants will
each bring their personal values to the table and view the outputs through their own personal filters.
In addition, a design of an indicator set should be sufficiently balanced to give a reliable and holistic
picture of a planning situation, and over time, accomplishments. It has been observed that indicator sets
are often imbalanced and weak in social and cultural aspects34 as well as in issues of vague importance
in every-day commercial forestry business such as water protection or nature conservation35. The
emerging recognition over the past decade of the value and importance of “ecosystem services” that are
often un-monetized can be remedied by careful consideration of indicators related to those services,
such as clean water and quality wildlife habitat.
RBM standards also stipulate that C&I sets contain a variety of different kinds of indicators at all levels
and thematic areas in the results chain. As illustrated in Figure 2, the higher in the results chain, the less
data is generally available or needed for strategic-level decision-making and planning. While budget
managers and implementers may be inclined to collect extensive information on resources and process
indicators, this level of detail is not of significant relevance to senior managers, policy-makers or
donors, who instead are more interested in a select, strategic number of performance indicators which
track changes at the output, outcome and impact levels. Because lower level information is less useful to
senior managers, policy-makers, and donors, having a large quantity of it whilst higher level indicators
are lacking may be seen as wasteful and erode support for SFM.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/ac135e/ac135e0a.htm
http://www.itto.int/policypapers_guidelines/
Moore, Mark, 1998. Creating public value: strategic management in government. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. p416 .
34 Gough et al., 2008
35 Hickey et al., 2005
31
32
33
9
Figure 2. Levels of Indicators 36
In addition to ensuring that the C&I set includes indicators at all levels, countries may want to consider
using a combination of different types of indicators (i.e., quantitative, qualitative and/or binary to
measure the status and changes of each defined criterion. Contrary to popular belief, indicators do not
have to only be numerical – they just have to be measurable (as in “Specific, Measurable, Achievable,
Relevant and Time-bound, i.e., SMART). Further, consideration should be given to include some “metaindicators”, that is, information about the quality of the information behind the indicators37.
The table below presents some SFM-related examples, as a means to demonstrate the difference
between a few relevant indictor types.
Table 1. Types of Indicators and SFM-related Examples
Indicator types
Quantitative
(the change is
measured in
numerical terms)
Qualitative
(the change is
measured in
descriptive or semiquantitative terms)
Binary (the result is
measured either by
Yes or No, i.e., it
has/hasn’t been
attained or it
does/doesn’t exist)
SFM-related Examples
Social: employees in the forest sector (no.); number of occupational accidents in the
forest per year (no.)
Ecological: number of threatened of species (no.); area of forest cover in “protected”
status, by International Union of Conservation of Nature (IUCN) categories (no. hectares)
Economic: contribution of the forest sector to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (%)
Social: public perception of forest management; importance of forests to people
Ecological: political framework and instruments for climate change adaptation of forests
Economic: structure of the forest-based sector; taxation and other economic strategies
that affect SFM
Social: availability of work safety regulations (y/n)
Ecological: existence of a National Forest Programme (y/n)
Economic: mandatory system of management plans for forest enterprises (y/n)
Diagram by Kimberly Ross/FAO
The MPWG uses indicator 7.5.c, “Monitoring, assessment, and reporting on progress towards sustainable forest management” as a metaindicator. The information reported for individual indicators includes how recently the latest information was collected; whether inventory
and monitoring information is routinely updated; whether the monitoring program has a peer-reviewed statistical sampling design and the
areal sampling intensity.
36
37
10
In practice, care has to be taken on the following issues:



Using all available quantitative data (e.g. from inventories) for C&I may lead to a data availability
bias and overload with parameters, since not all of the information is useful.
Using huge cumulative qualitative indicators may lead to difficulties in assessment, in particular
when they are ill defined and there is weak guidance how to measure them. To make qualitative
indicators measurable beyond a basic description, it might be helpful to introduce semi-qualitative
elements that allow for grouping and interval assessment (e.g. a measurement scale). Here is where
the logical connections between outcomes and outputs or between social impacts and outcomes
that are discovered, documented, and defined in logic models can help to identify the qualitative
indicators and descriptions that are of exceptionally high-importance and policy-relevant.
Binary indicators are often for benchmarking (over or under a benchmark/thresholds, or for
verification check lists, e.g. in certification auditing). Their utility will be dependent on two major
things: do legal or regulatory thresholds exist; or is there substantial consensus amongst the public
participants in developing the National Forest Programmes or plans for particular thresholds?
Measuring progress can be done at different degrees and it will depend on the type of indicators
selected. For example, in some tropical areas it is difficult to numerically quantify the results achieved,
so it might be better to identify and agree on the direction of change ("more of this" / "less of that") for
a given period, using qualitative or descriptive indicators. In other areas, it might be more appropriate
to set estimative targets that could be quantified numerically. Again, if this approach is used, it will
have more credibility if the public participates in identifying the indicators and setting the soft targets.
What is important to note is that the different kinds and levels of indicators will require different
measurement methods – each of which has different implications in terms of cost and effort.
C. Use of C&I in the different stages of Results-Based Management
Figure 3. The different stages of the
RBM cycle during which C&I are used 38
Generally speaking, C&I are most optimally used during
three of the main stages of RBM, as it is applied to the
design, planning, implementation and M&E of a program.
As shown in Error! Reference source not found. and
described hereafter, C&I are particularly helpful for: (1) for
Strategic Planning; (2) for Operational Planning; and (3)
for Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning. In the next
chapter, the case studies and key points derived from
actual experiences in using C&I are presented according to
these three functions or RBM stages.
a) Strategic Planning (Design) stage
The Strategic Planning (Design) stage is essentially the
phase during which a program and/or its related C&I are
formulated. This should ideally take place in two steps:
first, situational analysis to determine the priority
problems and needs to be addressed; and second,
development of the program, its results chain and C&I sets.
38
Diagram by Kimberly Ross/FAO
11
To manage by results requires that a program or intervention be designed in response to a specific,
well-defined problem or emerging challenge. Situational analysis and needs assessment are
therefore critical for identifying the core problem(s) as well as their root causes and possible
consequences. Stakeholder analysis is also an important exercise at this stage, as it helps to identify
who should be involved in the selection of criteria and indicators. Risk analysis is another key aspect
of this phase.
Once the country context is fully understood, the program and its C&I can be designed in a way that
takes into account national needs, capacities, constraints and risks. The information gathered through
assessment and analysis should inform the definition of the desired results—outcomes, impacts, and
criteria—and identification of activities that represent specific, contextually-appropriate solutions to
real problems and current priorities. During this phase, it is also important to be forward-looking to
anticipate emerging issues, challenges, opportunities, risks, and uncertainties. Doing so will help in the
sifting and sorting of desired outcomes, impacts, and criteria. This will also help establish current
benchmarks for relevant ecological, social, and economic conditions so that as the future situation
unfolds, resource inventories and monitoring activities can track key indicators that help policy makers,
decision-makers, and the public understand whether the future situation is unfolding as hoped or
feared and whether forest conditions are worsening or improving as a result.
Essentially, the design work involves defining the desired future situation, articulated within a results
chain. It also involves determining, from the onset, how you will know whether the desired results are
achieved. This is where criteria play a very important role – they define what the public and decisionmakers consider the really important social values and what ‘program success’ means. By identifying
the positive changes that the NFP aims to bring about, criteria form the basis for defining program
goals, objectives and deliverables (i.e., impact, outcome and outputs) that will need to be tracked with
key indicators.
Figure 4. Recursive analyses are critical in the design stage
With regards to program design, what distinguishes RBM from traditional approaches is that it consists
of identifying what you want to achieve (i.e., setting goals, objectives and intended outputs) before
deciding what you want to do (i.e., proposing activities). This is what is meant by the recursive
relationships amongst links in the results chain in logic modeling. One needs to begin at the end and
work backwards to the activities needed and the resources to accomplish them. All too often,
stakeholders jump into activity costing and planning without having determined what changes the
activities are intended to bring about and whether, in fact, the activities are necessary and sufficient to
catalyze such changes. Further, the recursive approach will help to identify core assumptions and
12
potential gaps in knowledge that need to be clarified before outputs can be specified and activities
designed. If the link between an important result and an output requires a key assumption or there is a
gap in the scientific understanding, simply papering over the gap with some hoped-for activities will
substantially increase both uncertainty and the riskiness of achieving success.
Once the results chain and criteria have been formulated, the next step is to develop indicators that
will enable each desired result/criterion to be measured and tracked over time. Together, criteria and
indicators can enhance RBM by defining and describing SFM goals as well as driving the development of
monitoring and reporting schemes.
b) Operational Planning stage
During this phase, operational plans – such as multi-year workplans and/or annual action plans –
are developed and used to guide implementation of program activities, in order to bring about the
expected results. Staffing plans and budgets are other important aspects of planning, as they help
ensure adequate resource allocation for the execution of all necessary activities. Doing a quality job in
the design stage will also help to create essential justification documents for staffing and budget
decisions.
Ideally, the results framework (i.e., C&I sets) developed in the first stage should also be elaborated into
a more detailed M&E Plan, which specifies: definitions of key terminology; the data sources, sampling
framework, protocols, and means of verification; data flows; the frequency of data collection; roles,
responsibilities, and training for data collection, quality assurance, data analysis, and reporting; and
tools for data collection, processing and archiving.
It will never be possible to monitor every piece of work accomplished or every step that contributes to
an output – nor is it recommended to do so. So the art of designing an M&E plan is to identify a vital
few set of indicators to monitor. In any multi-step process, there will always be some steps that are
more important than others – the key is to thoughtfully identify them. Some of these vital few may be
technically important others may be politically important, economically important, or socially
important. Be tough and persistent in choosing only a vital few indicators because it will make it easier
to fund, accomplish, and pay attention to a small set of indicators than a larger set. Race car computers
process thousands of pieces of information a second whilst racing, yet the driver only looks at five or six
gauges intermittently whilst coursing around the track.
Research has shown that successful application of RBM is largely contingent upon how RBM tools (such
as LogFrames and sets of C&I) are actually used. These are not meant to be static documents that simply
annexed to a program document and shelved. Rather, they are dynamic tools that should constantly be
used to guide programming and that should be updated on a periodic basis to reflect changed realities.
If used correctly during planning and implementation, C&I have potential to promote sustainable
practices in the forest sector, including but not limited to forest certification standards. They also
provide an essential reference on which performance targets can be set for SFM.
c) Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) stage
Robust yet practical M&E systems must be maintained, to be able to measure results and use the data to
strengthen SFM. Monitoring refers to routine collecting, processing, and reporting of information
about implementing activities (i.e., process indicators) and delivering outputs. This is an ongoing
process, involving follow-up of all activities and decision-making regarding adjustments to
programming in order to adapt to changing situations or to take into account lessons learned.
Evaluation can refer to periodic internal or external reviews as well as mid-term or post-intervention
studies, which assess the attainment of program outcomes and/or impact. RBM emphasizes the
importance of going beyond just tracking progress made (via “monitoring”) in order to evaluate the
higher level, longer-term effects of the program. The information gathered from evaluations can inform
strategic decision-making and the design of future programs and policies.
Learning should be a continuous process throughout program implementation, and even beyond.
Routine monitoring and reporting on C&I can lead to minor corrective measures in activity
13
implementation and internal processes, while periodic reviews and assessments have the power to
reveal more significant areas for improvement. Ex ante evaluations and research, on the other hand,
have the potential to capture important lessons and recommendations that can benefit programs and
policies beyond the specific NFP or other program being measured. For instance, they may offer
information on best practices or models that might be scaled up nationally or replicated elsewhere.
C&I are the foundation of MEL. They lay out a structure and system for lesson learning and continuous
improvements. More specifically, they set forth what needs to be tracked and how it should be
measured, thus enabling a program team to determine – an objective and consistent way – the extent to
which activities have been conducted and results have been achieved. Sets of C&I are mainly developed
for the national level to describe and monitor status and trends in forests and forest management.
Results frameworks containing C&I can help to organize and transmit existing information, identify
gaps in knowledge, and structure the gathering of new information to feed back into forest
management frameworks.
III. Experiences using C&I for SFM to promote results-based policy
formulation, planning, and M&E in the forest sector
Results-based policy formulation, planning and M&E in the forest sector aims at contributing to
evidence-based decision-making (EBDM) and better use of forest information in policy processes in
order to achieve results. The previous sections have highlighted the important role that C&I and NFP
can potentially play in defining, assessing, and monitoring progress toward SFM in a more resultsoriented approach.
However, the operational reality behind the promise of SFM, and more specifically the use of C&I, poses
notable challenges. Professionals often ask practical questions such as: How to do it? Who should be
involved? Which factors should be taken into account? What should be measured and/or analyzed? The
aim of this chapter, therefore, is to offer some answers by sharing real experiences and reflections on
how C&I may be linked to NFP to promote RBM, with the aim of improving SFM.
As aforementioned, the case studies illustrated here came from expert’s consultations and workshops
made in Africa, Latin America, Asia, Near East and Europe. Not all of the experiences presented
represent success stories. Rather, some reveal the real challenges or gaps that exist in applying C&I in
the country. The factors of success, key challenges, and considerations for improved application of C&I
are also discussed.
Based on these findings and analyses, a set of 9 tips have been identified and grouped by the relevant
stages of the RBM life cycle (see Figure 5).
14
Figure 5. Using C&I for SFM organized by stage of the RBM life cycle
A. SFM C&I in the “Strategic planning” phase: Initial Stakeholder Consultation
This is the stage during which one works to understand the national or subnational context (assess)
and, on that basis, propose and agree on appropriate responses in the form of multi-level programs and
policies (design). This phase essentially involves high-level strategic planning and should lead to a
concisely described policy, program or initiative. There should be a clear understanding of what the
policy or program intends to achieve (goals/objectives with criteria) as well as an appreciation for how
it intends to do so (via indicators with verifiable data sources).
Using participatory approaches including key stakeholders consultations to discuss and agree on the
'principles' of integrating C&I into the NFP, establishing a M&E system, and securing funding for it is
essential to the success and sustainability of decisions token in this stage.
C&I can be introduced to help shape discussions towards more clearly defined objectives, aiming
towards developing and agreeing on goals, objectives (and where possible even) targets that are
measurable through indicators. This facilitates discussions on the current status and setting forth how
progress and attainment of results will be measured and interpreted.
Some goals and objectives are more difficult to measure than others, and different stakeholders often
have quite different (explicit or underlying) objectives on any point; therefore the process of agreeing
upon C&I can help clarify differences in focus and in approaches to achieving desired results. In other
words, policy-makers, decision- makers and other key stakeholders need to agree upon the priority set
of C&I and develop a joint understanding of their intended use.
Thus, buy-in and high-level commitment from the government and engagement of diverse stakeholders
are critical in assessment and design processes. Engaging the appropriate number and diversity of
stakeholders in this process is extremely valuable for creating a common understanding of SFM, and
15
agreeing upon what are the important parameters that should be monitored and their respective set of
C&I that provide relevant and useful information for all eventual users of the data. In particular, it is
important that all key players understand the basic concepts behind RBM and C&I (especially the
results chain and related notions of causality and attribution); and that they come to agreement on the
levels and types of indicators that they will jointly develop. This is certainly not an easy task, given the
wide range of interests, perspectives and levels of understanding – yet it is critical for ensuring that the
agreed set of C&I are relevant, feasible and meaningful to all.
a) A1 - Participatory approaches facilitate stakeholder engagement.
Building a common understanding about how C&I came into play in the early stages of a program
formulation process (NFP or others) requires a participatory process. This should not only improve
ownership but also maximize results. Therefore, the active involvement of the key stakeholders in all
stages of policy/program design is a critical factor of success, as demonstrated by the case of Australia
(Box 4).
Box 4. Australia adopted a modified set of Montreal Process indicators through a consultation process
Australia’s national policy platform for the management of all forests – Australia’s National Forest Policy Statement, released in
1992 – explicitly covers conservation, wood production and ecologically SFM. The National Forest Policy Statement articulates
11 national goals, which paved the way for the development of forest C&I. In 1994, Australia, together with other member
countries, established the Working Group on C&I for the conservation and sustainable management of temperate and boreal
forests (the Montreal Process), with the aim of providing a common understanding and framework within which to view
progress towards SFM at the national level. In 1996 Australia adopted a modified set of Montreal Process indicators that better
suited Australia’s forests.
Critical to the success of Australia’s C&I framework is strong ownership across a range of stakeholders, result of the strong
history of collaboration since Australia joined the Montreal Process. Australia’s first C&I framework was developed through a
series of consultation processes with representatives from state, territory and Australian government agencies, practitioners
from different ownerships (public and private), management objectives and forest types (native and plantation forests),
industry, academia, research organizations, and the Indigenous community.
Different stakeholders with different priorities shoud agree on the country’s needs and priorities and
on the indicators (how many, which ones, how structured, etc.) that will measure progress in achieving
the expected results. The variety and diversity of organizations and individuals involved often implies
different levels of understanding and expectations from the use of forest sustainability C&I, and it is
important to accommodate the different views and proposals in a balanced manner through a spirit of
compromise, and at the same time to ensure that the C&I are pragmatic and auditable. See Box 5 for an
example of how Nepal tackled this. Their experience also shows that a set of C&I can serve different
purposes and audiences; therefore, it is important to establish a communication system permitting
information exchange across different levels.
Box 5. Top-down and bottom-up C&I development in Nepal
An interesting process of adapting C&I was undertaken in Nepal (Khadka & Vacik, 2012). In the first phase, a top-down approach
was used, whereby experts and national stakeholders derived a C&I set for Nepal based on ITTO C&I and CIFOR tools (The CIFOR
C&I Toolkit). In the second phase, a bottom-up process was launched to elicit the needs and capacities of community forestry
vis-à-vis the C&I. The resulting hybrid C&I reportedly promotes improved cooperation between the Nepalese forestry
administration and community forestry stakeholders, while helping to overcome unequal power relations, which had been
prevalent to date. Using C&I as a common concept to connect different angles of SFM implementation helped bring about a
solid consensus on the basic specifications of forest management in Nepal, from the onset; and it ensured that the C&I were
appropriate at both national and local levels representing community forestry in the national forest planning.
Discussions among stakeholders should be open and transparent until the final choices are made. It is
only through genuine participation that divergent views and conflicts of interest between various
stakeholders can be openly recognized and, where possible, resolved within a broad consensus. Box 6
presents an interesting example of the participatory approaches that the African Timber Organization
(ATO)/International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) employs when adapting its regional C&I to
the particular context of Gabon.
16
Box 6. Participatory approach to adapt ATO/ITTO C&I to Gabon context
ITTO/ATO has a framework defining seven (7) criteria of SFM, and indicators are adapted to the context of each member
country. In Gabon, the C&I for SFM local adaptation process development has involved a wide stakeholder consultation through:
1. the composition of National Working Groups, which is a national multi-stakeholder platform including land owners, civil
society, NGOs, local communities, women’s groups, independent bodies, industry, research and academia/universities,
Government, etc., and
2. the organization of National workshops for restitution and validation of national C&I, which are open to all the stakeholders.
Before the final validation of the national C&I field tests are done to better understand the local realities and to evaluate the
relevance of the locally adapted C&I.
To arrive to the final list of locally adapted C&I, Gabon had a team of multidisciplinary experts; uses the existing C&I (ATO/ITTO,
CIFOR, FSC…), realize field test and considered national forest issues.
Having multiple stakeholder opinions on the design of the results framework provides an opportunity
for discussion and eventual consensus on what good indicators and measures are and what number of
indicators will suffice. Involving people in feedback loops and data analysis will help to avoid a system
that just generates mechanical information – yet as the experience in Cuba has shown (Box 7),
stakeholder involvement can be challenging and must be carefully managed, since each stakeholder
may have his/her own interests, which risks leading to a large list of indicators which is not useful or
feasible to retain.
Box 7. Cuba’s experiences on choosing C&I
The selection of indicators for each of the criteria was a complex process, due to the lack of experience of the stakeholders
involved and their tendency to propose an excessive number of indicators at the early stages of the process. However, Cuba’s
established system for forestry work allows for the possibility of including new indicators based on local interests. Twenty-four
indicators were initially chosen, but the stakeholders were not adequately engaged to undertake the prioritization process at
the time. A new dynamic started in 2005, when new indicators were selected and others were eliminated, taking into account
their relevance, data availability and cost-efficiencies (i.e., if the cost of obtaining the information outweighs the importance of
the indicator for the assessment criteria).
The Forestry Department requires systematized and reliable information to analyze the trends of different forest activities over
time. According to the Cuban experts involved in this process, “where this has been done, it is like a light that illuminates the
way forward; yet where this has not been done, it is like working in the dark.” The Cuban experience confirmed that proper
selection of indicators is an aspect of undeniable importance, especially in the initial stages. Relevance, data availability and
efficiency are fundamental attributes for an indicator to be accepted. They also found that it is preferable to start working with
only few indicators, then to subsequently add others.
In many countries, the groups and technicians who are familiar with C&I do not necessarily consider
their integration into national forest policies (like the NFP), and vice versa. One of the challenges is thus
17
to bring these groups to understand that these tools (C&I and NFP) are complementary and can be
mutually reinforcing if used in an integrated way. It is recommended that the key stakeholders
involved in NFPs discuss and agree on the ‘principle’ of trying to use C&I to define and monitor the NFP.
The example of Cambodia 39 (see Box 8) shows how the forest administration took the lead to initiate
such a participatory process, according to the principles of NFP.
Box 8. Experiences of Cambodia on bringing stakeholders together
In Cambodia, the Forestry Administration, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and stakeholders in forest sector
embarked on a process to develop a NFP in 2007. A Task Force with representatives from the Forestry Administration, relevant
government agencies, development partners, non-governmental organizations and the private sector was established in late
2007 to promote SFM through the development of the NFP. According to the principle of the NFP, the government, represented
by the Forestry Administration, took a leading role in the process.
Nine objectives that should be attained by the implementation of six programs were identified and selected for formulation by
the NFP Task Force at the beginning stage and six subgroups were established to formulate one program each. The six specific
programs are: i) Forest Demarcation; ii) National Forest Management and Conservation; iii) Forest Law Enforcement and
Governance; iv) Community Forestry; v) Capacity Building and Research; and vi) Sustainable Forest Financing. The NFP Task
Force elaborates a first draft of the NFP document.
Local consultations workshops with the wider public across the country were organized by the Forestry Administration in March
2009. The workshops were aiming to raise public awareness and collect feedback and comments from local stakeholders on the
draft NFP document. More than 600 participants attended the workshops, representing relevant local government agencies,
local communities, local authorities, local NGOs and the private sector. Feedback and comments from the local consultation
workshops were incorporated into the draft NFP document before conducting a new round of consultations in July 2009. The
final version of the NFP was finished at the end of 2009 and approved in 2010.
Box 9 explains how a participatory multi-stakeholder process was used in Vietnam and Peru to design
the NFP, including the indicators used to assess its implementation and performance.
Box 9. NFP: a stakeholder platform in policy processes helps to choose C&I
One of the main principles and strengths of NFPs is its emphasis on full participation of stakeholders in policy processes.
Stakeholders must participate properly in reaching a consensus, not just be input into a technocratic policy process. Agreeing on
which C&I should be included on the NFP requests issues-oriented discussions among often adversarial actors and advocacy
groups through multi-stakeholder platforms, round tables or working groups and promote a more collaborative atmosphere in
forest policy processes. This has been shown to be an essential condition for the better use of technical and scientific knowledge
in policy processes and for the willingness of stakeholders to rely on information from multiple sources.
For example, in Vietnam and Peru, the information needs assessment was conducted with a wide range of stakeholders
identifying priority issues for monitoring, as well as indicators already measured by existing frameworks in order to avoid data
redundancy. In Nicaragua, for instance, the needs assessments confirmed the importance of fuel wood and charcoal for local
community development derived from trees outside forests. This was subsequently included in the national forest monitoring
and the results fed into a new national firewood and charcoal policy.
Participatory processes are limited by unequal power relations and potential conflicts that risk to derail
the process into trivial or irrelevant results with no real influence in practice. It is important that
participation be strategic and add value to the development of the C&I sets, rather than being a mere
procedural event without substance. National, stakeholder-driven C&I processes must not be
undermined by selective, interest-driven procedures that may lead to unbalanced sets that do not
reflect the whole picture of a local problem setting. Therefore, care is needed to ensure that the right
39
http://www.fao.org/forestry/18622-025fed8babbe0811bfab443acf65a1c93.pdf
18
depth and breadth of stakeholders are involved, so that the process is not “captured” by a subset of
stakeholders, while also ensuring that the number involved is manageable and does not lead to
“analysis paralysis”.
Box 10. Multi-stakeholders consultations in Philippines to adapt ITTO C&I
Philippines has adopted the ITTO C&I system for SFM. A crucial lesson from using the C&I system was the manner and process in
holding nationwide multi-stakeholders consultations. The task of consolidating the varied interests of the stakeholders of all
sectors in the forest industries or wood-based industries, tenure holders, academia and research institutions, association of tree
farmers, and indigenous peoples who are holders of Certificates of Ancestral Domain Claims/Titles/Land Clams/Land Tiles was
challenging. The expectations always run high from different stakeholders that are mainly concerned with net economic benefits
since the system was always equated with recovering high transaction costs.
Nonetheless, the highly participative process of multi-stakeholder consultations did give an excellent impact that help generate
greater awareness and interests on the need for the C&I system and audit procedures for SFM. The civil society in the
Philippines that are highly conscientious and progressive minded are sometimes divided on the use and applicability of the C&I
system, including group of non-government organizations that are critical of the environment. Obviously, they have different
understanding, backgrounds and aspirations, often with diverse interests and sometimes have their own political agenda based
on the prevailing political climate in the country.
b) A2 - Integrating C&I into National Forest Programmes (NFPs) can enhance RBM.
NFPs aim to provide the necessary strategic orientation for formulating and implementing a political
framework that supports SFM at national and sub-national levels. C&I terminology is very useful for
expressing the conditions and goals of the NFP in widely understood, accepted and scientific language.
Consequently, as shown in Box 11, including C&I in the NFP will make forestry efforts more resultsoriented and thus more likely to achieve SFM. The NFP, in turn, is a powerful instrument for
institutionalizing C&I for SFM.
Box 11. Integrating C&I into Costa Rica - National Forest Development Plan 2011-2020
Forest policies are the most important state-owned instruments for SFM, as they guide Forest Administrations to develop and
implement its operating policies, processes, plans and projects. It is also essential to measure and monitor the outcomes and
impact of these policy documents, as well as to identify risks, threats and weaknesses in the implementation of strategies.
In order to do this, Costa Rica defined one top policy and twelve forest policies. It then identified the expected results and set
targets, which articulate the criteria by which the state will benchmark its achievements. They also formulated a set of indicators
to enable measurement and evaluation of policies.
Policy
Expected Impact
Impact Indicators
Top policy:
the country's forest
cover is maintained
and increased
sustainably through
the valorization of
forests and other
ecosystems and
forest land, ensuring
legal certainty, the
tenure of the land
and the rights of
owners and holders
to the use of private
property to ensure
essential goods and
services for the
quality of life of the
inhabitants.
The country's forest cover is maintained and
sustainably increases in lands that have a
forestry vocation.
% of the total land area with forest cover
The value of forests and other forest
ecosystems and their benefits increase in the
perception of society.
% of the total area of forest ecosystems in the
country in relation to:
a. The total land area of the country.
b. The area of land that have a forestry vocation.
c. The area of forest in protected wilderness areas.
d. The conversion rate of forests to other land uses.
Owners of forest and lands with forestry
vocation find that sustainable production of
forest products is attractive and profitable.
Significant increase in added value for the
use of timber.
Significant increase in job creation.
Significant increase in the area under
Environmental Services recognition systems.
19
Total of hectares covered by forests outside the
natural heritage of the state.
Added value for the use of timber.
Number of new jobs created during the reporting
period
Area under Environmental Services recognition
systems
C&I can be used to design the NFP from the onset, and together, they provide structure (through a
results framework) and give a common understanding of SFM at national level. C&I could help to
identify common topics of interest, streamline language and find agreement on the priorities for policy
implementation, funding decisions, data requirements and cost-effective collection methods. The
experience of Cambodia, for example, illustrates how NFP and C&I are mutually reinforcing tools that
can help maintain a focus on SFM. However in this NFP the indicators are not linked to specific
objectives, and a suggested link is proposed in the example of Box 12 to provide a more accurate
methodology for correctly applying C&I and RBM principles.
Box 12. Cambodian NFP 2010-2029 uses C&I to promote RBM
The overall objective of the Cambodian NFP 2010-2029 is: “Forest resources provide optimum contribution to equitable macroeconomic growth and poverty alleviation, particularly in rural areas, through conservation and sustainable forest management,
with active participation of all stakeholders.” Nine strategic objectives are specified in the NFP in order to define clear goals, and
strategic indicators enable the tracking of progress and measurement of results.
Strategic objectives
1: Maximize sustainable forest contribution
to poverty alleviation, enhanced
livelihoods and equitable economic growth
2: Adapt to climate change and mitigate its
effects on forest based livelihoods
3: Macro land-use planning that allows for
holistic planning across sectors,
jurisdictions and local government borders
4: Forest governance, law and enforcement
at all levels
5: Develop a conflict management system
6: Raise awareness, capacity of institutions
and quality of education to enable
sustainable implementation of the NFP
7: Ensure environmental protection and
conservation of forest resources
8: Apply modern sustainable management
models adaptive to changing context
9: Develop sustainable financing systems
Strategic Indicators (2029)
 On average, 20 registered and vibrant small- and medium scale direct and
indirect forest based enterprises or cooperatives operating in each forestry
cantonment. minimum of 50% of processed wood for export will be certified
 SFM with prescribed silviculture implemented on 2.4 million hectares of
production forest.
 Current level of forest cover will be increased to 60% of the total land area
 Demarcation of a total 120,000 km of forest boarders (primarily completed
during the last ten years)
 Forest monitoring and reporting system, showing the results and outcomes,
updated monthly and available in the public domain
 Strategic forest decisions taken by the forest authorities in dialogue with
other ministries and a vibrant civil society through a minimum of two crosssectorial and public meetings per year
 Larger scale forest based conflicts spiraling to destructive levels or hostilities
limited to a maximum of two of national attention per year, through the
application of conflict management.
 Civil servants in the forest sector able to initiate and implement activities with
partners external to the Forestry Administration as a natural part of their
daily routines
 Protected Forest covers 3.0 million hectares
 500,000 hectares of high value commercial plantation established and 10
million tree seedlings distributed per year
 Two million ha of forest land allocated for Community Forestry
(approximately 1,000 CF) groups fully recognized with CF agreements
 Annual net revenue from the forest sector of 125 million USD.
 Annual average net income (excluding establishment and maintenance costs)
from carbon sequestration of 25 million USD.
 The forest sector will be fully self-financed.
C&I could help to define the targets that should be attained during the implementation of the NFP, as
shown in the example of Costa Rica in Box 13.
20
Box 13. Integrating indicators and targets into Costa Rica - National Forest Development Plan 2011-2020
Seven strategic areas were considered essential to the forestry sector in Costa Rica, which are: i/ planning of forest land, ii/
positioning the forestry sector, iii/ competitiveness of forestry, iv/ sustainability of forestry, v/ coordination, institutional efficiency
and effectiveness, vi/ innovation and sustainability of funding, and vii/ climate change mitigation and adaptation.
For each strategic area, strategic objectives were developed; and for each of the strategic objectives, indicators and targets were
also defined. Together, these represent the various criteria by which the state will measure success in achieving the mission and
vision of the National Forest Development Plan.
Strategic area 07: “Climate change, mitigation and adaptation”
Strategic objective
Promote SFM as a key
strategy for adaptation
and mitigation
associated with carbon
neutrality.
Indicator
Number
of
forest
carbon
transactions made nationally and
internationally in financial terms or
tons.
Volume of consumption of legal
timber locally produced.
Target
As of December 31, 2014, a carbon market operating as a
result of SFM actions.
From January 1, 2015, a significant increase in forest
carbon transactions in markets or international funds.
A 10% increase per year in the consumption of locally
produced timber for long-term uses.
C&I could also be useful tools for collecting information on the actual status of the forests, thus
presenting the baseline situation from where to move forward. In brief, as shown in Box 14 the
experience of Viet Nam has shown that the integration of agreed sets of C&I into the main instruments
used to regulate and guide forest management practices – the main one being the NFP – can promote
RBM in the forest sector.
Box 14. Viet Nam Forestry Development Strategy 2006-2020
In Viet Nam, due to unsustainable management and a very high need for conversion of forest land and for forest products for
socio–economic development, the forest area and forest quality have continuously decreased over the years. The Forestry
Development Strategy (2006-2020) aims to reverse this situation, and it uses indicators to define the current status of the forestry
sector and to define targets.
Data Description
Current situation (as described in the
Forestry Development Strategy 2006-2020)
Desired result (Objective of the Forestry
Development Strategy 2006-2020)
Year
1943
Millions ha of forest
14.3
% Forest Cover
43%
1990
9.18
27.2%
2005
12,61
37%
2010
2020
Not specified
16,24
42-43%
47%
By integrating C&I into NFPs promotes results-based forest-related policy and programs. Experience has
also shown that introducing C&I sets can help to structure the participatory discussions that should
underlie the development or revision of an NFP. C&I have the demonstrated ability to streamline terms
and concepts, articulate exactly what should be monitored, and enable the comparison of what is
comparable.
Moreover, C&I can be used as a checklist to ensure that all aspects of SFM are considered in the NFP.
This can be done going through the relevant C&I set, comparing it with the outcome or draft of the NFP,
and addressing any discrepancies or omissions. For instance, if the NFP says nothing about invasive
species, but the C&I do, that is a reason to discuss why invasive alien species that are a negative factor
influencing the health and vitality of forest ecosystems are not addressed in the NFP.
c) A3 - C&I must be part of an M&E system with adequate funding.
SFM can be achieved only if forest policy and management decisions are based on a M&E system which
produces up-to-date and statistically robust evidence on forest resources and their changes. Monitoring
involves routine data collection and reporting (to measure activity and output indicators), while
evaluation is an occasional study involving research methods (generally to measure outcome and
impact indicators, though sometimes also output indicators depending on their scope).
21
C&I are tools that can be used to collect and organize information in a manner that is useful for
implementing, monitoring and evaluating SFM. Thus, the development and use of indicators must be
based on a sound methodology to ensure credibility, reliability and effectiveness. M&E systems must be
robust and practical, taking into account data availability biases as well as available resources. This
assumes that, during the “Design stage”, the stakeholders involved in the NFP have discussed and
agreed on the ‘principle’ of establishing an M&E system for the NFP. Developing C&I is just the first step
– and without a clear, agreed process, set of tools and adequate resources for actually using the C&I (i.e.,
collecting and analyzing the data on each indicator), they will not serve their full purpose.
The planning and implementation stage involves developing the M&E system, which consists of a clear
M&E plan (as shown in Box 15); data collection, analysis and reporting tools; and a funded action plan
for conducting M&E activities.
Box 15. Strategic Monitoring and Evaluation Plan of the Costa Rica National Forest Development Plan 2011-2020
In order to facilitate implementation and M&E of the National Forest Development Plan, Costa Rica proposed (among others) to
establish a political, strategic and operational structure charged with these responsibilities, the National Forestry Council and
Executive Secretariat. The country also developed strategies for regular monitoring and periodic evaluation of the plan’s
implementation. An extract from the strategic M&E plan of the National Forest Development Plan for 2011-2020 is shown
below. Note: The indicators here are examples of binary indicators rather than quantitative ones.
Strategic Monitoring and Evaluation Plan of the National Forest Development Plan 2011-2020
Strategic objective
Ensure effective linkage
of NFDP 2011-2020 in
operational planning of
the forest administration
institutions.
Indicator
Target
Annual revisions of operational
planning of the institutions
conducted.
Review the degree of achievement
of NFDP targets conducted
Members of the Commission hold at least one annual
forum with different institutions to analyze and evaluate
compliance with the NFDP goals and objectives and to
take appropriate corrective actions.
Annual compliance with at least 80% of the NFDP
targets.
Being able to analyze data on C&I and compare trends over time requires a certain regularity of
available and valid data. Thus, for each indicator, several things need to be identified at the onset of the
planning stage: the data source and collection method; the timing and frequency of the data collection;
and the responsibilities. These details should be documented in an M&E Plan, which ideally also
specifies the baseline and target for each indicator. Table 2 below provides a simple example of an M&E
plan from Nigeria.
Table 2. Nigeria’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) M&E plan
Type of
indicator
Impact
Performance
Performance
Performance
Data for indicator
Indicator
Responsibility
Baseline
Target
30% in
2020
% of the
population
aware of the
importance of
biodiversity
Federal
Department
of Forestry
(FDF)
N/A
No. of
outreach &
awareness
campaigns
No. of public
discussions
National
Orientation
Agency (NOA)
N/A
20 in
2020
NOA
10 in
2020
No. of states
in Nigeria with
outreach
NOA
To be
imputed
by FDF
N/A
At least
50% in
2020
22
Data gathering
methods
Means of
Verification
Collection &
Reporting
Frequency
Start and end
of program
Surveys of
representation
groups of the
population to be
carried out; OR
Estimate of number
of people reached
by outreach activities
Review of outreach
campaign reports
Survey
Results
Annual
Report
Annual
Review of public
discussions
Reports
Review of outreach
activities and reports
at annual NBSAP
Newsletter,
NOA reports
to NBSAP
Newsletter
Annual
Results of
Estimate
Annual
activities
meeting
C&I-based M&E systems should, to the extent possible, use and improve existing information and
reporting systems at different levels and by different agencies. In some cases, it might be helpful to
consider using data sources that are accessible with new technologies (if they are cheaper and faster or
address something that is not measured at the operational level). The example in Box 16 shows the
Collect Earth System, which enables a quick view of the big picture, providing reliable monitoring at
policy level without the trouble and expenses of more detailed on-the-ground monitoring systems. This
could be an interesting approach to monitor the results of NFPs.
Box 16. Using cost-effective technology in monitoring: Collect Earth System used in Papua New Guinea
Land is being deforested by agriculture, infrastructure or other uses. Deforestation and forest degradation are a major
contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. To effectively reduce greenhouse gas emission it is
important to have the right tools, allowing countries to know how much forests they actually have, how much mass of carbon it
contains and how much of that is being lost.
To help countries achieve this goal, FAO launched the Open Foris initiative, which is a set of free and open-source software tools
that facilitates flexible and efficient forest monitoring. The initiative is a collaborative effort of numerous public and private
institutions and it is hosted by the Forestry Department of FAO. The tools can be used around the world to gather information
regarding forest areas, to assess woodland condition and to measure woodland use and the carbon content they store. These
applications are flexible and can be customized to suit different environment and different environmental guidelines (such as
Convention on Biological Diversity, UNCCD).
A key instrument here is 'Collect Earth', a free open source and user-friendly tool that enables users to collect high-resolution
satellite images via Google Earth. These images can then be used to create forest inventories as well as forestry and land use
plans, and to quantify deforestation and other forms of land use change. Monitoring land use enables countries to quantify the
impact on climate change. “Collect Earth System” is a monitoring tool that uses cost-effective technology and methodologies
that has allowed the development of an important data base. Each system offers special features for monitoring the
environment, land-use changes, land cover, and mainly the analysis of trends in land use. It provides important information
about the status and trends required for the management of natural resources and that allow monitoring program and policy
long-term outcomes.
The forest authority of the government of Papua New Guinea has undertaken land use and land use change assessment using
this tool. Information collected shows that 37.6million ha of forest land remained as forest while almost 1.7million ha of what
was initially forest land was converted to cropland. The tool enables an accurate assessment of the land and its dynamics and
therefore can assist governments to make well informed decisions on sustainable forestry and land management. (Source:
www.openforis.org)
The quality of data collected through C&I is indispensable. Nonetheless, increasing the quality of data
and information may either increase the costs or the complexity of data collection and estimation
procedures, or both. Gains in precision frequently bring losses in simplicity, cause increases in cost and
make it more difficult for the stakeholders to understand and accept the resultant data. Moreover, there
are no clear examples that establish a link between “information quality from national forest
monitoring” and “decision quality in related policy processes.”
Box 17. Monitoring national forests / Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) systems for REDD+
TBD
Voluntary guidelines on national forest monitoring
http://www.fao.org/forestry/38631-08f58961a3495e61a2fa774eca65a792f.pdf
Monitoring Systems for MRV-REDD+ (http://www.fao.org/3/a-bc395e.pdf)
A key challenge of an M&E system is thus to do this in a cost-efficient way. Sometimes having few
people but sophisticated technology could reduce costs significantly, as in the case study from Finland
(Box 18).
23
Box 18. Cost-effective monitoring approaches in Finland
Finland uses the National Forest Inventory (NFI) which is a monitoring system that produces information concerning national
and regional:
 forest resources - volume, growth and quality of growing stock,
 land use structure and forest ownership,
 forest health,
 biodiversity of forests, and
 forest carbon stocks and their changes.
NFIs form a unique time series of the development of forests in Finland. The first NFI was carried out as early as the1920's. Since
then, NFIs have been conducted regularly in 5–10 year cycles. Over the years, Finland has found ways of reduction the cost of
M&E, by very carefully analyzing the cost-benefit ratio for each parameter in the system. Specifically, they have found costefficiencies by applying sampling techniques in the NFI, applying more sophisticated technology to the inventory, and optimizing
human resources so that only a small number of experts are needed for M&E.
Forest resource information produced by NFIs is based on extensive field measurements. In the first inventories, lines through
the country were surveyed; but in recent inventories, systematic sampling and field plot measurements have been used. Based
on the samples of field data, reliable forest statistics can be calculated for the whole country. The multi-source NFI utilizes
several data sources: field measurements, satellite images and digital maps. With this method, forest statistics and thematic
maps can be produced for any given area.
The forest statistics and other information produced by the NFI are widely used for forest policy making at national and
international levels, regional and national forest management planning, planning of forest industry investments, assessing
sustainability of forestry and in forest certification, evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions and changes in carbon storage and
for research. (Source: Finnish Forest Research Institute http://www.metla.fi/metla/finland/finland-forest-resources.htm, Finnish Forest
Association http://www.smy.fi/en/forest-fi/graphs/forest-resources/)
Indeed, monitoring costs money – and evaluation costs even more; and in some countries, the forest
department is poorly funded to adequately carry out planning, monitoring and evaluation functions.
However, monitoring is not an “optional extra”; and without proper monitoring, the other funds
committed may well be wasted.
One of the major issues in implementing RBM is the availability of budgets or the willingness of
decision-makers to provide the necessary funding to achieve and/or measure the results. Many
programs, especially in developing countries, are increasingly implemented with mixed funding
(international and national); and relatively high shares of the finance have to come from national
governments or financial institutions the governments work with (e.g., regional banks). In addition, a
clear budgetary framework does not always exist right from the beginning of the planning phase. So it is
24
critical that appropriate funding be allocated for the implementation of the M&E system which is
necessary for measuring and using the indicators.
B. SFM C&I in the “Operational Planning” phase
This step refers to Operational Planning, which operationalizes the strategic level policies and
programs that were formulated in the previous step. It consists of the development and prioritization of
a select set of SMART40 indicators, including their selection and/or adaptation to ensure alignment
between different forests related initiatives. This involves elaborating a costed M&E plan for the
establishment of a robust yet practical M&E system that enables data collection and analysis for the
agreed set of C&I.
a) B1 - C&I should be adapted to the national/sub-national context yet aligned with C&I from
various forest-related initiatives at different levels.
C&I need to be nationally tailored so that they are feasible and practical as well as accepted and
justifiable for users. This can mean adapting generic global or regional C&I to national or sub-national
conditions or developing country-specific C&I sets. In doing so, it can be useful to consider existing C&I
sets, and revise them as needed so that they are geared towards measuring the national policy
objectives. If there is something which is important at the national level, but is not mentioned in the
existing C&I set, it is recommended to consider adding specific indicator to the national C&I set.
It can be challenging to adapt the existing global sets of indicators, which often focus on high-level,
generic results (e.g., forests as % of land area), to national or sub-national needs and priorities. This can
be done by either modifying the generic global C&I sets or by developing completely new, specific
indicators that pertain to specific goals and objectives related to attaining SFM nationally. The example
from Russia in Box 19. shows how they based their NFP indicators on the indicators within the
Montreal Process, going from the rather abstract, non-directional Montréal Process criteria and
indicators to more specific national indicators.
Box 19. Russian National Forestry Development Program (2013-2020) adapts C&I of Montreal Process
The Russian government approved a new forestry development program for 2013–2020. The objective of this program is to
sustainably improve the use of forests, prevention of forest damage, protection of forests, and regeneration, by securing the
environmental values of forests and their global functions. Being involved in Montreal Process and Forest Europe, some
indicators have been proposed to be consistent with international engagements taken by Russia. These are summarized in the
table below.
Montreal Process Indicator
Russian NFP 2013-2020 Indicator
Criterion 2: Maintenance of productive capacity of forest ecosystems
2.a. Area and % of forest land and net area of forest land Proportion of the entire area of forest resources that is
available for wood production
leased (target: 26%)
Share of the total amount of wood harvesting that consists
of cultivation and improvement cuttings (target: 25%)
Criterion 6: Maintenance and enhancement of long-term multiple socio-economic benefits to meet the needs of societies
6.2 Investment in the forest sector
Kilometers of forest roads constructed per year (target:
6.2.a. Value of capital investment and annual expenditure 6,200)
in forest management, wood and non-wood forest product
industries, forest-based ecosystem services, recreation and
tourism
40
See Table 3 for an example.
25
Adapting C&I to the national or sub-national context involves making sure that there is adequate local
capacity to design and use the proposed C&I. Countries’ capacity to collect, analyze and use data should
thus be considered when prioritizing and selecting the final sets of C&I at national or subnational level.
To the extent possible, it is recommended to use existing indicators (if they are relevant and feasible),
in order to ensure validity and keep costs down. A participatory process can facilitate the national C&I
adaptation, as seen in A1.
While establishing and using the list of C&I for a national forest program or policy, it is also important
to consider international and national engagements and requirements. Nationally adapted C&I should
be consistent with the international processes and conventions to which the country is a signatory. NFP
have to be consistent with national planning frameworks and global initiatives, thus NFP C&I should be
aligned with those of regional and/or global conventions or broader national strategies/programs. This
essentially consists of ‘nesting’ or ‘aligning’ results frameworks, where criteria (objectives) of one
program feed into the criteria (objectives) of other programs, either vertically or horizontally. It is also
important to maintain the link with overarching C&I processes, to have a common reference point and
comply with standard definitions and reporting duties.
Box 20. Peruvian Bicentennial Plan towards 2021 links forest and development sectors
Peru has 73.3 million hectares of forests, which equates to 60% of the Peruvian territory. Deforestation, even if relatively low
(annual deforestation rate 0.2%), is the primary source of greenhouse gas emissions in the country. In order to meet its
international commitments, and in response to internal pressure from national stakeholders including indigenous peoples, the
private sector, NGOs and subnational governments, Peru is undergoing a process of public sector forest management reform.
The Peruvian government has stated a goal of preserving a total of 54 million hectares of forest, reducing its rate of
deforestation to zero by 2021. This goal was included as a national goal in both the National Environmental Action Plan 20112021 and the Peruvian Bicentennial Plan towards 2021 (CEPLAN, 2011). By ensuring a % of permanent production forests under
management as a national goal, Peru shows its intention to promote C&I in the public sector and ensures links between the
development strategies goals with the C&I of the forest sector.
The priority of alignment is within the country over alignment with international requirements, and it
is important to ensure alignment and linkages with relevant results frameworks and C&I sets. The idea
is that various projects and interventions, together, contribute to the national development objectives
articulated in an NFP, while the combined efforts of national NFPs of various countries contribute to
achievement of regional and global development goals. In that regard, it is important to demonstrate
how each of those programs (and sets of C&I) are related, least we lose sight of the higher-level, longerterm aims of these initiatives or we miss opportunities for synergies and collaboration across
interventions.
Showing the linkages and alignment between different forest-related programs within a country and
their C&I sets can also facilitate the process of developing C&I and communicating about and reporting
on results. Rather than start from scratch, it can be helpful to refer to existing C&I sets for inspiration or
adaptation. Also, indicators that are already wide used should be selected for efficiency and
effectiveness purposes. Furthermore, making reference to established C&I sets (which already have
agreed definitions) within the NFP increases the likelihood that the NFP’s C&I will be understood by a
wider audience, and different stakeholders, public and private, can align their actions on a specific
program component. See Error! Reference source not found. for an example of how European
countries are adapting regional C&I sets to national contexts.
26
Box 21. Adaptation of C&I in European NFPs
Applying the regional C&I sets to national contexts through NFPs is wide-spread in Europe, particularly in terms of the Forest
Europe Process and its Pan-European C&I set. In a recent evaluation, more than 50% of countries have NFPs and most of them
employ C&I to a certain extent – whether at national or even subnational level. Finland and Austria, for instance, launched a
separate C&I development process that built on the backbone of Forest Europe, but gave ample space to add indicators that
reflect the needs of the stakeholders. As well, France developed a national C&I that should serve both national and sub-national
purposes. Italy employed using C&I for identifying SFM targets on sub-national, and in Catalonia, a region in Spain, C&I were
used to stipulate the discussions on carbon sequestration and adaptive forestry on sub-national level.
Overall, the united commitments of European countries on a Pan-European C&I set provides a good, well-accepted backbone
for further development in NFPs. As national C&I can be mostly seen as soft mode obligation in implementing SFM, this gives
space and freedom to incorporate stakeholder perspectives and give additional credibility to NFPs by accepting national
specificities. This would also imply the option to reach even down to management indicators, which actually is not widely
implemented in Europe.
With regards the latter point, the avenue for adapting C&I for management and local levels was opened via forest certification.
While both the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) exist in
parallel, PEFC has direct connotations to Pan-European C&I and the Pan-European Operational Level Guidelines.
Providing linkages to other sectors at national level may require including some C&I that pertain to
related sectors or sustainable development in general, rather than limiting the C&I set to traditional
forest sector results. Adopting this holistic approach, even if it adds an additional layer of complexity,
can lead to joint efforts of data collection at national level, avoiding data duplication. This includes
synergies in measuring and assessment as well as harmonization of definitions and terminology – all of
which C&I can facilitate.
While NFP and C&I serve well to establish a common understanding and streamline forest-related
debates, they are often limited by sectoral boundaries. Hence, in a NFP process it is important to keep
track of new emerging and/or cross-sectoral issues that might affect the forest-based sector. This
requires outreaching communication on forest issues and common efforts with related, but nonsectoral C&I initiatives. For instance, a future direction towards bio-economy or green economy may
help streamlining sectoral C&I and integrate non-sectoral issues into NFP by these means. As well,
climate change mitigation and carbon sequestration is a topic that requires a more holistic approach in
order to properly place forestry issues in the arena. In Europe, some initial developments in integrating
bio-economy and climate change strategies into NFPs have been observed41, but further insights are
still lacking. In the European Union, there are ongoing discussions about how to integrate sectoral
information (e.g., biomass C&I, bioenergy C&I), for more holistic bioenergy C&I in general. The role and
uptake of existing forest-related C&I and national implementation in the context of bio-economy are yet
unclear.
Increasing interest of different initiatives in using C&I (ITTO, Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and
Trade [FLEGT], Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation [REDD+], etc.) in many
countries has motivated different agencies and/or NGOs in the same country to engage in parallel
efforts to collect national level forest data. This can lead to considerable differences of forest data
across agencies as well as fragmentation of data or to avoidable data duplication. It is thus
recommended that all agencies concerned with forests should start their monitoring and policy
formulation from the C&I framework.
41
Linser & Wolfslehner, 2015
27
Box 22. Linking national forest inventories to national policy planning
TBD (See e.g. Arnold et al 2014)
Many countries use C&I in different strategies and/or actions plans concerning international
conventions. However, these C&I are rarely included in a national document, such the NFP, making
difficult to ensure a coherent national forest strategy. A key challenge will be to harmonize and make
synergies between different processes and different levels of applications, and maintain reference and
compliance to other C&I processes, while being specific enough to support national acceptance of C&I. It
is important to maintain a cross-sectoral view, to avoid promoting conflicting outcomes of C&I
application and interpretation.
One of the critical issues for an efficient and comprehensive use of C&I is how to overcome sectoral
boundaries to make C&I more effective and useful as a tool to a broader audience/decision-making
community. It has been frequently observed that forestry C&I are often too specific and technical to
server broader understanding, and not compliant with other statistics in terms of definitions and data
design. It will be important to seek cross-sectoral “Indicator partnerships”, activities to harmonize C&I
along the gradients of land use and natural resource use. The harmonization issue may be particular
important for multi-reporting duties such as climate change mitigation, where parallel efforts cause
incoherent, parallel assessments that cause costs and frustrations of the reporting bodies. It is
important to connect NFPs and C&I employed to these overlapping issues at least, and secure common
platforms for C&I on institutional and organizational levels.
Box 23. Guatemala experiences to avoid duplication of efforts from forests initiatives
Guatemala tried to avoid duplication of efforts for REDD+ by developing a governance and decision-making mechanism for
REDD+ which includes the political interagency coordination group and the technical inter-institutional group, and among them,
the inter-institutional monitoring group. This group consists of public competent entities, the academia, private sector and
NGOs with technical expertise in monitoring.
(Souce: http://marn.gob.gt/Multimedios/3306.pdf)
In most countries, forest and other public agencies or research centers and universities have land-use
information systems that reference “forests”. However, the use of different methods, definitions, scopes
and data sources among different agencies may produce inconsistent or even contradictory figures on
forest area, forest conditions and other forest attributes. Improving consistency is particularly
important and much research has been done for this purpose in the forest monitoring community
28
regarding standardization and harmonization of definitions and approaches42. Different interpretation
of terms and data collected is a challenging point that can partly be solved with the existence of a
dedicated or specialized body to collect and analyze the information required.
b) B2 – A vital number of indicators should be developed at each level in the results chain.
As explained in Chapter II, the desired results should be identified and articulated within a clear
“results chain” that features logical cause-effect relationships between the different levels of results.
The agreed results chain should be based on a solid, credible “Theory of Change” whereby attainment of
each lower level leads to achievement of the subsequent level. To determine if all criteria for success
have been met (i.e., to assess the attainment of the desired results), indicators should be developed at
all levels of the results chain, i.e., from outputs to outcome(s) to impact. Creating process indicators for
activities is less important because they track inputs rather than results, yet some countries may want
to include them as a way to ensure that implementation of action plans/workplans is on track. The
example in Box 24 shows indicators from activity to outcome levels; this C&I set could be further
improved if it also specified an indicator at the impact level.
Box 24. Example of a results chain to improve water quality
RESULTS CHAIN
LEVEL:
CRITERIA:
INDICATORS:
OUTPUT
OUTCOME 1
OUTCOME
IMPACT
Reforestation in
degraded lands
Reduced soil losses in
degraded lands
Reduced sedimentation
in rivers
Improved water quality
due to sediments
reduction
# of trees planted per
hectare
# of tons per hectare
per year of sediments
losses
# of tons per year of
sediments in the river
Source : TNC 2012. WATER FUNDS - Conserving green infrastructure: A guide for design, creation and operation.
As shown in the example from Nigeria’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan in Box 25 below,
indicators at activity and output level focus on progress of implementation and efficiency, while
indicators at outcome and impact level are concerned with the higher-level, sustainable effects of the
interventions. In their case, they call activities “actions” and outcomes/impact “targets”. In addition,
they use the terms “impact indicator” for the indicators corresponding with all high-level results and
“performance indicator” for the activity indicators. Typically, the term “performance indicator” or “key
performance indicator” is applicable at all levels – and it is “process indicators” that refer to activitylevel indicators. In an ideal example, there would be four levels of indicators, each pertaining to:
actions/activities; outputs/deliverables; outcomes/objectives; and impact/goal. This reveals a need for
a broader understanding and application of common RBM and M&E terms. Thus, both the strengths and
weaknesses of this example provide an opportunity for learning.
Arnold F.E.; Rametsteiner E. and Kleinn C. 2014. User-oriented national forest monitoring planning: a contribution to more policy relevant
forest information provision. International Forestry Review Vol.16(4)
42
29
Box 25. Nigeria’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
Nigeria’s National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans are the principal instrument for implementing the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) at the national level. Nigeria signed CBD in 1992 and ratified it in 1994. The second National
Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (2016-2020) is closely aligned to both the CBD Strategic Plan for biodiversity 2011-2020
and its Aichi biodiversity Targets and Nigeria’s unique Priorities and features. It has adopted 14 National Targets and 67 Actions.
For each National Target and Action, a set of indicators (Implementation and Impact) are identified in the Nigeria’s National
Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans:
 Performance indicators are used to monitor actions (short-term results): 123
 Impact indicators are used to monitor targets (long-term results): 21
Target
Target 1. By 2020, 30% of Nigeria’s population is aware of the
importance of biodiversity to the ecology and economy of the
country.
Actions
1.1. Conduct outreach and awareness campaigns (radio,
jingles, etc.), information sharing and public discussions on
Nigeria’s biodiversity and its significance to ecology, economy,
life and services, with specific emphasis on indigenous and
local communities.
Impact Indicator
% of the population aware of the importance of biodiversity.
Performance Indicator
1.1.1. No. of outreach & awareness campaigns.
1.1.2. No. of public discussions.
1.1.3. No. of states in Nigeria with outreach activities.
1.1.4. No of radio jingle aired
1.1.5. No of advert in television and newspapers
1.2.1. No. of publications produced and no. of copies
distributed.
1.2.2. No of local languages and dialects covered by outreach
publications.
1.2. Produce and distribute publications in appropriate local
languages and dialects on biodiversity and ecosystem services
for the public, especially women and youth.
As shown in the example from Central Africa in Box 26 below, the scope of the program and criteria
determine the timeframe for realistic attainment of the desired results. In this example, the Strategic
Objective represents the desired impact, the Operational Objectives represent the intended outcomes,
and the Expected Results are the outputs. While the Central African Forest Commission (COMIFAC) has
developed an indicator at the impact level, this framework is missing the indicators at outcome and
output levels. Normally, we would expect to see those various criteria (outputs, outcomes, impact)
listed in the column to the left, with the indicators listed in the column to the right.
Box 26. COMIFAC convergence plan 2015-2025
The Central African Forest Commission (COMIFAC) is an intergovernmental organization in Central Africa established in March
1999 through the "Declaration of Yaoundé". Its goal is to give a regional dimension to the conservation, sustainable and
concerted management of Central African forest ecosystems. In February 2005, the organization adopted a "Convergence Plan”
to improve management and conservation of forests in Central Africa. The present Convergence Plan 2015-2025 establish
impact indicators for strategic objectives (long term results) and expected results for operational objectives (short and mid-term
results). An example of this is given in the following table.
IMPACT
(long-term
result)
OUTCOMES
& OUTPUTS
(short-midterm
results)
Priority Area 1: Harmonization of Forest and Environmental Policies
Strategic Objective 1.1: Update,
Impact Indicator 1.1: By 2025, all countries in Central Africa have forest
harmonize and implement forest
and environmental policies and legislations, and appropriate institutional
and environmental policies
frameworks, coherent with the sectorial policies and incorporating the
COMIFAC guidelines and Regional and International Agreements.
Operational objective 1.1.2:
Expected results:
Strengthen and harmonize
 National policies and legislation incorporating the rapidly changing in
policies, institutional frameworks
the forest and environment sector are revised in a concerted manner
and national legislations.
in all the countries of Central Africa;
 National programs and projects integrating the orientations of
Convergence Plan and international and regional agreements are
developed and implemented.
30
At all levels in the results chain, well formulated indicators are those that are “SMART”:





Specific: The indicator is clear and specific about what is being measured;
Measurable: The changes that the indicator measures are objectively verifiable, with data
sources that are available and/or feasible to collect;
Achievable: The indicator and its target are realistic, assuring that an end can be achieved;
Relevant: The information they provide directly relates to the corresponding result/criteria and
is likely to be used for management or immediate analytical purposes (i.e. they are located at
the appropriate level in the results chain); and
Time bound: The target is based on a specific date by which the result(s) can be achieved.
The table below examines the extent to which the outcome indicator (#1.1) in the COMIFAC
convergence plan is SMART.
Table 3. Analysis of an indicator as per the SMART criteria
Indicator example
Definitions
Explanations
By 2025, all countries in
Central Africa have forest
and environmental policies
and legislations, and
appropriate institutional
frameworks, coherent with
the sectorial policies and
incorporating the COMIFAC
guidelines and Regional and
International Agreements.
S = specific
S = “all countries in Central Africa have forest and environmental policies and
legislations…”
M = measurable
M = The existence or non-existence of forest and environmental policies can be
measured. Assessing the appropriateness would require a policy review, based
on certain specific criteria.
A = achievable
A = It seems realistic to have 10 years to achieve this desired result.
R = relevant
R = Having coherent policies and legislation in the region is relevant to the
Strategic Objective, which focuses on updated, harmonized and implemented
policies. However, the indicator doesn’t address implementation.
T = time-bound
T = “by 2025”
Measuring indicators at different level of results can be challenging, as the above examples
demonstrated. There is not widespread understanding of the results chain, which may lead to omission
of indicators at certain levels or a weak Theory of Change. Above all, clarity must be maintained by
having only a few (and SMART) indicators. Many countries might find their C&I ineffective in measuring
the effects of policy and in many cases this might be due to the fact that they have not proposed
indicators at outcome or impact levels. Indicators at those higher levels generally require more time
and resources to collect the data required for measuring them.
In addition, some stakeholders are reticent to propose outcome and impact indicators because they are
concerned about being held accountable for achieving results that are beyond their full control. This is
partly due to the fact that indicators have been considered too narrowly, ignoring qualitative and/or
categorical indicators. What is important to understand here is the concept of “attribution” (which is
further discussed in Annex D), which states that the higher in the results chain, the less control the
program has over the results. It is widely recognized that impact is never something directly achieved
by a single NFP or project – rather it is a longer-term result to which many initiatives contribute and
therefore a single stakeholder cannot be accountable for it. Activities are the only level for which a
stakeholder is fully accountable, yet roles and responsibilities are also tied to delivery of outputs.
Therefore, the monitoring of activities and outputs is important for ensuring that programs of work are
being implemented and delivering what was promised. The purpose for assessing outcome and impact
is simply to ensure that the programs are having the desired medium and longer-term effects for which
they were designed – it is less a question of accountability and more a question of goodwill and intent,
to make a difference for the wellbeing of the country, its people and the environment.
A big challenge is to use indicator systems that connect state and policy indicators. Although it is
recognized that SFM needs integrated solutions and that indicators systems could help to establish
horizontal policy coherence, very few countries use them consistently.
31
Another common problem with results frameworks and performance measurement systems is that
they often contain a large set of indicators, which are burdensome and costly to track. As it is
impossible to monitor everything, prioritization is imperative. With regards to C&I sets, quality is more
important than quantity – and more is not necessarily better. In other words, a minimal number of key
indicators should be selected, with the priority being put on those which can provide the necessary data
for EBDM and are technically feasible and cost-effective to collect. If the means of verification (MoV) for
the indicators are too burdensome and not realistic to use, a different indicator should be selected.
There is no “correct” number of indicators to assign per criterion, but the following questions could
help guide such a decision: How will this indicator help with monitoring, management, and evaluation? Is
this indicator absolutely necessary to measure whether progress toward the desired result is being
achieved? To what extent will maintaining it create additional burdens on the respondents or data
collectors/processors? If yes, are there any alternative indicators or proxies that could provide adequate
information in lieu of this indicator?
Although sometimes simplifications should be encouraged, they should not be at the expense of
scientific and methodological soundness. One simplification could be to have C&I sets for different
users, with fewer indicators addressing relevant key issues of the output or outcome. The best
indicators need to be identified considering their: reliability, validity and credibility; cost-effectiveness
in terms of cost to collect and process; and whether they are directly linked to the result in question.
Sometimes it might be recommended to prioritize C&I that capture existing (secondary) data rather
than having to collect primary data. Another option is to use proxy43 indicators, which can be used as
indirect measures of achievement when direct measures are difficult to assign. However, such proxies
must be assigned carefully as a common threat to the validity of results measurement is the use of
inadequate proxy indicators. But in many cases, for instance for biodiversity, the use of proxy indicators
is unavoidable.
Furthermore, at the impact level, try to keep the focus on the forest sector. Globally and even nationally,
many impact indicators go beyond forestry to describe the overall context or broader development
goals. These should not be the top priority for a national program, because they only describe the
“context” and depend on history, climate, other parts of the society or economy that Forests do not
directly impact (i.e. share of forests in GDP, which is predominantly determined by the size and success
of the rest of the economy, not by forestry itself). When setting targets for the indicators, it is important
to focus on results that can reasonably be changed in the time scale of the NFP.
c) B3 – Results-oriented budgeting can encourage a focus on performance and ensure that
resources are adequately allocated for achieving desired outputs.
Results-oriented budgeting – regardless of the exact terminology used: performance-based financing;
results-based budgeting; budgeting by results; etc. – is as a strategy that seeks to optimize management
and performance by allocating resources based on results. With regards to the public sector, these
results represent a prioritization of public policy choices and should match the expectations of citizens.
The main strength of a results-oriented budget is that it is based on the realization of outputs, and not
just on inputs (i.e., spending that is not necessarily accompanied by any palpable results). This
approach forces one to not only evaluate what has been spent, but also what results have been attained.
Despite the potential benefits of results-based budgeting, it is apparently not a practice that is regularly
or widely used. The lack of good examples illustrates just how challenging it can be and how standard
definitions and models have not yet been agreed upon. The example from Cambodia in Box 27 shows
43
A “proxy” is a variable that is not in itself directly relevant, but that serves in place of a variable which cannot be measured directly.
32
how the budget has been broken down by sub-program; yet a true results-based budget would actually
allocate costs by activity and by output within each program or sub-program.
Box 27. Cambodia NFP budget by sub-program
The Cambodia NFP 2010-2020 specifies an estimated budget for each sub-program over a five-year period.
Proposed
budget
2010-2014
$2,340,000
Estimated
budget 20152020
$5,774,00
1.2 – National Forest
Classification
$443,000
$443,000
Total Program 1 “Forest
Demarcation, Classification
and Registration”
$2,783,000
$6,217,000
Sub-programs
1.1 – Forest Demarcation and
Registration
Justification
2,000 km to be demarcated annually at a price, based on
initial pilot demarcation work, costs up to 500 USD/km, and
when reduced by 30% due to gained efficiency and
experience, ~ 350 USD/km. NB: Outsourcing with
competitive bidding of elements of the demarcation and
classification work is an obvious option for cost-cutting.
More than 8 million hectares are not classified. The cost is
estimated up to 1 USD/ha. It is suggested that classification
should be undertaken on a pragmatic basis, where needed,
and in a speed that matches other operations.
While Bangladesh is not yet conducting full results-based budgeting in the forest sector, they are taking
steps to link budgeting to results, as explained in Box 28.
33
Box 28. Bangladesh Country Investment Plan aligned to the results framework for Environment, Forestry and Climate Change
Bangladesh is in the process of finalizing a 5-year Country Investment Plan (CIP), which serves as the country’s single strategic
plan for the Environment, Forestry and Climate Change (EFCC) sector. As an integrated results and financing framework, the CIP
helps the Government translate policies and sectoral plans into cross-sectoral prioritized investment areas that contribute to a
clear results chain.
In the investment framework, projects feed into subprograms that, in turn, contribute to programs, which
are then grouped into pillars. Each pillar, program and
sub-program has defined expected outcomes and
outputs – all of which contribute to a common goal (see
Diagram 2 below). The budgets, developed through a
costing exercise, are compared to a mapping of existing
projects, so that estimates of a financing gap
(investment needs minus existing investments) can be
computed.
By tagging funding to specific projects, sub-programs
and programs, the CIP facilitates: investment in priority
activities that produce results; coordination of human
and financial resources (i.e. stakeholders and funds);
and monitoring and reporting on implementation and
results, which informs adjustments to plans and their
implementation.
Diagram 1 CIP integrated results and financing framework
Diagram 2 Pillar, program and sub-program contribution to a common
goal
Diagram 3 Subprogram indicators and budget details
34
It has been formally recommended that a CIP
Monitoring and Coordinating Unit be created as a
permanent technical structure within the Ministry of
Environment and Forestry. The unit will be tasked with
the role to coordinate and monitor investments, as well
as their impacts, and to prioritize future investment
needs. The CIP will help Bangladeshi agencies prepare
better projects by clarifying: who needs to do what,
what targets there are to achieve, and what the
investment priorities are. This is particularly important
to Bangladesh as it seeks to address significant climate
change challenges, implement ambitious commitments
made to the UNFCCC, and report on progress towards
SDGs. The Bangladesh Environment, Forestry and
Climate Change CIP has found inspiration from another
cross-sectoral Country Investment Plan that aimed to
improve strategic investments in agriculture, food
security and nutrition (AFSN). This latter plan,
developed with the support of FAO in 2011 and
monitored ever since, has contributed greatly to
improved investment coordination and resource
mobilization in these sectors.
C. SFM C&I in the “Monitor, Evaluate and Learn” phase: using C&I
This section refers to the actual application of C&I, involving the process of collecting, analyzing,
reporting and using the data that is collected to adjust programs. C&I are measured and the resulting
findings are interpreted at various levels. It should result in evidence-based decision-making about
adjustments needed to policy and programming as well as documentation of key lessons learned and
practices to be applied to future interventions. It may also provide ideas for further modifying or
enhancing internal RBM systems and/or the C&I themselves.
Monitoring and evaluation are indispensable learning and management tools for improving current and
future program planning, implementation and decision-making. Monitoring focuses on inputs and
outputs while evaluation generally focuses on effectiveness, relevance, outcomes and impact.
a) C1 - C&I are only as good as their data collection/management systems.
The value of the information collected through C&I will lie in the quality of the data sources and in the
way the data is analyzed. Data collection and analysis methods have to be consistent to ensure the
comparability of data over time. Available data of indicators take on their full meaning in a multi-year
series that allows identifying trends, analyzing the causes and influence factors. This multi-year vision
allows to measure if a strategy is efficient in the long term. These mean that C&I should be consistently
defined and remain stable; if they are changed too often, then trends cannot be assessed over time and
past/present performance can no longer be compared. This is further discussed in the context of
Austria’s experience in the box below.
Box 29. Austria’s progress in the National Forest Program (NFP)
In Austria, the C&I development process within the NFP started in 2004. Since then, the indicator set has been consolidated
towards a set of 62 indicators for which quantitative data are available for different time steps. These time steps vary, as defined
by availability of official statistics (e.g. annually), forest inventory data (ca. 10 years), or outputs of research results (irregular).
For each indicator a target value was introduced to be benchmarked against the timely development. For each indicator, a
traffic light system evaluates the progress in comparison to a reference year. The indicators serve as a controlling instrument of
the NFP, and are used as conceptual backbone of the Austrian forest report (every 3-5 years).Two major challenges were
identified: indicators lacking accurate current data are difficult to benchmark against, and indicators which are completely
insensitive to any change. A planned revision of the assessment in Austria will focus on key indicators that reveal strong
assessment and communication power of progress or non-progress.
An M&E system can be flexible, with indicators being modified or added during implementation as data
capacity increases and new data elements become available. However, it is very important that they not
be changed often because that will prevent the ability to trace progress and observe trends over time.
Box 30 provides an example of how Peru has managed to track forest cover on an annual basis, by
tracking the same indicators over more than a decade. Forest cover is one of the criteria that the NFP
specifies as an indication of a successful SFM; and “annual loss of forest cover in hectares” is the
corresponding indicator. Actually, many countries already track this – perhaps without even realizing
that they are using C&I!
35
Box 30. National Forest Cover Monitoring System in Peru
Peru is losing around 130 thousands hectares of forest every year (around 17 football fields per hour). To monitor forest
deforestation, the National Forest Cover Monitoring System analyzed deforestation data on an annual basis. Collecting data on
this indicator will allow Peru to know the progress made to achieve the goal of reducing deforestation rate to zero.
Figure 6. Annual forest loss between 2001 and 2013, Pebas District, Amazon River
Hereafter is a similar example, this time from Cuba, where the national target was to increase forest
area by up to 29.3% in 2015, from 13.4% in 1959. This case shows how changes related to a policy goal
set in the national context can be assessed over time, if the indicator is retained and consistently used
over many years.
Box 31. Cuba annual monitoring of forest area
The commitment made by Cuba in the Earth Summit in 1992 was to increase forest area by up to 29.3% in 2015 (the forest area
in 1959 was 13.4%).
Figure 7. Forest area rate in Cuba from 2003 to 2015
Effective and useful analysis and interpretation of data will also be dependent upon the quality,
reliability and consistency of data among information systems and over time as well as the internal
capacity of forest administrations to analyze data. As the case study below shows, it is essential that the
C&I by clearly defined from the onset, in order for them to be accurately and consistently interpreted.
36
Box 32. ASEAN Secretariat uses C&I for SFM to structure the systematic collection of data: experiences and challenges
The Monitoring, Assessment and Reporting Format for Sustainable Forest Management (MAR) was developed based on the
Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) C&I, to enable the ASEAN Secretariat to structure the systematic collection of
data and/or information from each ASEAN Member State pertaining to the achievement of sustainable management of ASEAN’s
forests. Towards this end, computer programs were developed to enable the MAR Format to operate both online and offline.
Training courses among AMS at the ASEAN level on the application of the ASEAN C&I and in using the MAR Format, both online
and offline for data capture in AMS were also conducted. ASEAN Member States have agreed to provide updates to the online
MAR Format on a biennial basis. This will allow the ASEAN Secretariat to produce periodic synthesis reports on the progress in
achieving SFM at the ASEAN level, as well on the status of forest cover, management, conservation and development of the
forest resources in ASEAN.
In implementing the MAR Format, especially its online component, the ASEAN Secretariat has experienced among others,
different interpretations of some of the terms used in the MAR Format by individual ASEAN Member State; lack of inter- and
intra-agency collaboration for data collection; inadequate timely and reliable temporal and spatial data and/or information; lack
of internalization in the implementation of the MAR Format through existing forestry platforms in ASEAN Member State; and/or
other integrated programs relevant to forests; lack of a dedicated or specialized body to collect the structured information
required by the MAR Format in each ASEAN Member State; limited human and financial resources; lack of awareness and
capacity among the stakeholders involved in data collection; and inadequate identification of which indicators that were not
relevant at the national and FMU levels in individual ASEAN Member State.
Some of the major risks in using the MAR Format to structure the data and information to be captured at the ASEAN level are
that trained trainers in ASEAN Member State are promoted as part of their career development or have left the organizations;
the online MAR Format has become obsolete in the light of technological advances; the information captured by the MAR
Format does not reflect and meet current needs, such as information on forest carbon sequestration and carbon stock, forest
governance, ecosystem resilience and forest biological diversity, and the working conditions of forest workers.
In Europe, the introduction and further development of C&I has had positive effects on the shape of
monitoring instruments. It has resulted in harmonized activities during inventory design, improved
comparability and standardization of data collection, and an increase in forestry statistics. Overall, C&I
served as a reference for further adaptation of monitoring instruments both in practical and
methodological terms. The most immanent problem in relation to monitoring C&I has been maintaining
resources and capacities. In times of financial crisis in many countries (e.g. Eastern Europe), investment
in monitoring and experts are vanishing (e.g. longer inventory periods, incomplete data collection).
With new reporting areas emerging (e.g., climate change), resourcing in forest monitoring and
reporting are frequently questioned44. Currently, considerations are ongoing towards generating more
synergies in data collection and towards selecting key indicators that would avoid collecting unused or
irrelevant data.
b) C2 - Using C&I for monitoring and reporting in a strategic way can enhance evidence-based
decision-making during implementation.
If C&I have been consistently defined and data collected regularly – as proposed in C1 – the data
gathered should be viable and useful as an evidence for decision-making related to ongoing
management and implementation as well as future programming and policy work. This section
discusses the latter – ongoing management and implementing during the life of a program (LOP).
Most NFP documents (and multi-year programs in general) have a certain specified time span (e.g., 5 10 years). The implementation of NFPs' sub-programs and related actions are to be reviewed regularly
over the course of the program. Monitoring, review and reporting efforts during the LOP typically
pertain to activities and results at the output and outcome levels, since they are attainable in the short
and medium terms. Only in some cases can changes in impact – which is generally a longer-term result
44
EFI, 2013
37
– be noticed during the LOP. These M&E exercises generally focus on the degree of input into activities,
the degree of progress on activities towards outputs, and to a certain extent, the level of attainment of
the outcome(s).
Since monitoring and reporting are done on an on-going basis – and reviews are done periodically – the
findings should be used to inform decision-making and feed into implementation. Generally, such
results can identify where certain interventions are off track or where certain approaches are not
working as expected, thus provoking slight adjustments in programming.
By presenting the information generated from the C&I in an informative, user-friendly, and attractive
way, policy-makers and managers can more easily ‘digest’ and apply it to program-related decisionmaking. For instance, Australia has found that the use of C&I in reporting helps to structure the reports
in a logical and known framework, as shown in Box 33.
Box 33. C&I helps improve reporting in Australia
Since joining the Montreal Process, within Australia there has been a shift from fragmented national forest reporting to
reporting with a shared understanding of purpose, increased transparency and trust in the processes, and increased capacitybuilding. Importantly, this has led to increased harmonization between local, regional, national and international reporting for
Australia.
The primary reasons for this change are the adoption of the Montréal Process C&I; the creation of a national consultative forum;
the integration of the framework into formal reporting processes; the alignment of Australia’s forest certification scheme to the
framework; and the ongoing engagement with Montréal Process country members.
The requirement in the Australia’s National Forest Policy Statement for governments to make available a review of the state of
Australia’s forests every five years has been achieved through publication of the Australia’s State of the Forests Report, series
jointly produced by the Australian, state and territory governments.
State of the Forests Report is a comprehensive report explicitly structured using Australia’s framework of C&I and addressing the
social, economic and ecological aspects of forest management. This approach has led to a consistent, comprehensive series of
reports that align with international reporting and with reporting within Australia.
Another way to enhance EBDM is to present the data in an attractive way, using graphs and diagrams,
traffic-light score cards, dashboards, etc. One such example is a “Decision Theatre,” which is an
innovative technique for promoting multi-stakeholder engagement in evidence-based policy-making.
Decision Theatres could include formulation of C&I as a component of program and policy development
(see Box 34 below).
Box 34. Decision Theatres – The Future of Evidence-based Policy-making
There is a growing trend in the construction of ‘Decision Theaters,’ which bring together the benefits of integrated modelling
with multi-stakeholder deliberation in a visually-immersive environment. Decision Theaters have been referred to as the future
of evidence-based policy-making, with facilities operating in the United States, Canada and China.
Unlike some visualization labs and flat-wall display facilities, the Decision Theater is an immersive environment designed for
collaboration. Participants are often arranged in a conference configuration to improve human engagement with each other and
to interact with the visual information around them. They can take advantage of a variety of tools to improve decision making
including 3D and geospatial visualization, simulation models, system dynamics, and computer-assisted tools for collecting
participant input and collaboration. They also have access to the university’s ongoing research in policy informatics, design,
geography, computational science, business, psychology and mathematics.
The facility is used by federal, state and local government agencies, community planners and policy makers in business to
address complex problems ranging from hyper growth, and water resource management to disease monitoring. (Source:
https://dt.asu.edu/)
Another innovative tool to facilitate interpretation and application of data is an online dashboard,
which compiles data on selected indicators and uses graphs and visuals to present current status and
trends. This is an efficient way to visualize information quickly for decision-makers.
38
c) C3 - Learning from the evidence generated from C&I can lead to improved future
programming.
This section discusses the application of program evidence and lessons to future programs and policies.
Of course, lessons are learned throughout the LOP; yet typically a final evaluation examining the higherlevel achievements and impacts would be conducted at the end of the multi-year program in order to
assess: whether the intended outputs were delivered; the extent to which outcomes were achieved ;
and what impact was made. The findings should provide information on whether the NFP is oriented in
the right direction and what changes or additions might be needed for the next NFP cycle. This may
also lead to sets of recommendations being formulated, which advocate for certain policy reforms.
In this regard, C&I are also potentially powerful instruments for influencing future programs and
policies. Indicators provide information on what is (or is not) working and on the extent to which the
expected results are being achieved, all of which is valuable information for improving SFM at different
levels. Refer to Box 35 and Box 36 below for an example of data on forestry indicators that helped to
catalyze legislative reform in Argentina and Cuba, to the benefit of SFM.
Box 35. Argentina: monitoring deforestation results in a law to protect environment and promote SFM
Since the 1990s, Argentina enters a pulse deforestation favored by investment in infrastructure, technological changes
(transgenic and direct seeding) and international context (globalization), which probably led one of the largest transformation
processes of native forests in the country's history.
Figure 8. Evolution of natural forest cover in Argentina
In response to these notable land use changes over the past two decades (mainly due to the advance of the agricultural frontier
and the complaint on the alleged trampling on the rights of the indigenous people regarding the ancestral lands they occupy and
the management of the natural resources), the National Congress passed Law Nº 26.33115 of Minimum Standards for the
Environmental Protection of Native Forests to enrich, restore, preserve, use and manage native forests in a sustainable way.
Among other things, Native Forests Law established a one-year ban on deforestation and required the provinces to define those
forest areas that would be protected, those designated for sustainable use and those that could be converted to other uses. It
also provided for creation of a National Fund for the Enrichment and Conservation of Native Forests to be distributed to the
provinces. This has led to a slowdown in the process deforestation of native forest in the last years.
Box 36. Cuba’s intensification of reforestation
In Cuba, data is collected on an indicator that captures the area of forest plantations, considering both the production and the
survival of plantations. Ten years of data showed a degrading situation and poor performance in key indicators. After the data
was presented at the National Forestry Commission in 2014 (chaired by the Minister of Agriculture), agreements were
undertaken to intensify reforestation efforts in the country.
Better use of information in policy processes occurs when there is effective communication in the sense
39
of comprehensive, timely and transparent information flow and the exchange of knowledge and
experience between relevant institutions and participants in policy processes45.
No matter how complex an M&E system or its datasets, it is important to ensure there is a simple ‘front
end’ that can be quickly grasped and understood by a broad range of audiences, including decisionmakers and funders. For this purpose, open access to information, as well as user-friendly data retrieval
and visualization tools, can contribute greatly to the use of C&I data results in forest policy. Indeed
“Information is a source of learning, but unless it is organized, processed and available to the right people
in a format for decision making, it is a burden not a benefit”46. ITTO member countries had a positive
experience in this regard, as is summarized in the box below.
Box 37. C&I data have positive influence on Forest Law reform in ITTO Member countries
TBD (more detail on the approach they used and any evidence that their communication strategy was one of the factors of
success (so that the box more explicitly supports the above-mentioned points about communication)?
ITTO member countries have to report on progress every 2 years. An evaluation of principle 1, which concerns policy, showed
that there had been positive influences on Forest Law revisions in some countries (Gabon, Democratic Republic of Congo, and
Côte d’Ivoire) as well as on the elaboration of policies and management rules.
Information derived from relevant, scientifically sound and comprehensive data is a critical resource
for improving the evidence base and the quality of decision-making in forest policy. Solutions for
complex issues in forest conservation and management require specialized information as well as
competency by decision-makers and their staff to integrate such information into decision making.4
Although technical information is commonly assumed to be apolitical and providing a neutral basis on
which to make policy choices, in practice, data and information are frequently subject to differing and
opposing interpretations among stakeholders.47
Effective M&E is essential for ensuring that results are being achieved and providing vital information
for decision-making and lessons learned for the future. However, forest practitioners – especially in
developing countries – often observe that the results of forest monitoring have rarely, if ever, been used
by policy makers. Also, managers in charge of monitoring may find it difficult to convince decision
makers at the policy level of the usefulness of monitoring forests; and it can take time until their
proposals are accepted and funded (if ever). One of the main factors for these challenges is that
monitoring has not explicitly been designed to answer policy-relevant questions, rather M&E efforts are
often technology driven and/or carried out by donor-led projects. Consequently, strong discrepancies
exist between the approaches of forest monitoring and the information needs for forest policy issues.48
IV.Conclusions
A. Main Challenges to strengthen the use of C&I in NFP to enhance RBM
Lessons from two decades of experience have shown that C&I and NFPs are both powerful tools that
can reinforce each other. NFPs provide an opportunity to discuss sustainability C&I; and, in turn, the
integration of C&I into NFPs can strengthen their ability to promote SFM. Moreover, there is a close
Guldin et al.2005
William Pollard Quotation
47 Nelkin D. 1979. Scientific knowledge, public policy and democracy: a review essay. Science communication 1(1): 106–122.
48 Arnold F.E.; Rametsteiner E. and Kleinn C. 2014. User-oriented national forest monitoring planning: a contribution to more policy relevant
forest information provision. International Forestry Review 16(4)
45
46
40
relationship between the three elements of RBM, C&I, and NFP, in that they are proven instruments to
promote SFM.
While the NFP focuses on the practice of implementing SFM in participatory ways, C&I is a tool for
applying RBM at all stages in the program cycle. Nevertheless, entirely rational and evidence-based
decision-making and policy-making are not always congruent with reality. Further clarification is
needed on the linkages between these concepts are and how synergies can be capitalized for the
harmonized use of existing sustainability C&I.
The extent to which C&I are being applied varies across regions, sub-regions and countries; and there is
still some confusion around how to best formulate and use them. C&I are all-too-often seen as a
complex tool with little to no added value. Consequently, a low level of interest is observed among the
main actors that should be using them, notably forest administrations, local communities and economic
operators. This tends to result in inadequate funding by national governments, and efforts to nationally
adopt C&I being primarily supported by international bodies.
To reverse this situation, a number of significant challenges need to be addressed. These could be
grouped into 7 categories: i) demonstrate and communicate the added value of C&I for SFM; ii) promote
leadership and ownership through inclusive participation in NFP and C&I development; iii) provide
adequate funding for implementation and M&E of NFPs; iv) simplify and harmonize C&I for SFM; v)
ensure effective and innovative data management; vi) facilitate a cross-sectorial, landscape approach;
and vii) reinforce capacity building and feedback.
a) Demonstrate and communicate the added value of using C&I for SFM
C&Is are particularly useful for planning and developing guidelines (legal and regulatory frameworks,
standards etc.) and they help to build up an atmosphere of trust between states and the various groups
of forest users (private sector and communities). C&I also improve transparency and accountability,
and they can enhance communication, capacity building activities and advocacy work related to climate
change and FLEGT. C&I enable the setting of concrete targets and benchmarks and thus to objectively
prioritize countries and sites for engagement. They also define the desired changes that an NFP aims to
bring about enable the monitoring progress towards the achievement of SFM and other intended
results.
However, forest sustainability C&I are not well known outside the forest sector, partly because of
limited communication and/or engagement. To strengthen the use of C&I for SFM, it is important to
demonstrate their benefits and create incentives for using them. Some actions could include
communicating the framework outside the forest sector (e.g. local governments, schools, communitybased organizations, actors along the value chain) and using C&I to encourage dialogue and provide
evidence on key elements of C&I in professional communications.
b) Promote leadership and ownership through inclusive participation in NFP and C&I
development
To promote leadership and ownership, users need to be involved in the process and recognize the
added value of using C&I to enhance RBM in NFPs. If potential users are actively involved, then it
becomes their own process, and ownership then follows. The main groups to further involve in
adapting and using C&I are those affecting or affected by forests and SFM, which are mainly
practitioners at local levels (smallholders, community groups, informal operators), and those making
decisions about land use and land use change, including investors in agriculture, forestry and other land
uses.
Better ownership is manifested by stronger RBM and integration of SFM elements into multi-year plans
in forest and other sustainable development strategies. Using the process of developing country outlook
papers as one platform for reviewing and refining indicators could also stimulate ownership.
c) Provide adequate funding for implementation and M&E of NFPs
Collecting the baseline data information and monitoring C&I to measure progress towards SFM
requires human and financial resources. However, countries rarely put sufficient resources into the
41
development and promotion of C&I for SFM or in their monitoring and evaluation. On the contrary,
efforts observed are most often related to projects or external initiatives.
National Forests Monitoring Systems are one of the instruments providing information, and on which
international cooperation has been investing for more than a decade (mainly FAO). However they have
not really been used to discuss about C&I, and they has only been linked to NFP when information
needs are discussed. The system could be improved by promoting the generation of C&I during the
design or evaluation of monitoring systems, where the challenge of providing information to multiple
scales and multiple purposes is also discussed.
d) Simplify and harmonize C&I for SFM
As full C&I sets are complex, they are rarely used in their entirety. Different users often need sets with
fewer indicators addressing relevant key issues. To promote the use of C&I and make full use of their
potential, generic sets of C&I need to be further reviewed, simplified and adapted for each user group
and specific purpose. There is indeed a strong need to reduce the number of indicators, maximize
benefits with minimum inputs, develop simple sets adapted to users, and consider the possibility of
modular approach.
At regional level, collaboration and coordination should be undertaken to further harmonize forest
monitoring and reporting, and link different regional C&I initiatives (including options for global forest
indicator partnership). This should enhance the C&Is’ added value and efficiency. At national level, a
national commitment for harmonization of C&I data sets (inter- and intra-agency coordination) would
be needed.
e) Ensure effective and innovative data management
Effective processing and management of information collected through C&I is required to quality
assure, store, organize, analyze and report M&E results. Jointly developed procedures and guidelines
involving different sectors will simplify performance assessment procedures and improve efficiency.
Computer-based tools should be developed to simplify the task of using forest sustainability C&I for
monitoring, analysis and in generating periodic synthesis reports on SFM. This will result in uniformity
of data, and efficiencies in data collection and supply, with much of the data being able to be used for a
range of reporting purposes.
Moreover, while the capacity of governments to invest in forest monitoring and data collection may
have reduced, new technology has made data available that was previously too expensive to collect.
Continued innovation and meaningful engagement in both data collection and reporting mechanisms
will therefore be required to maintain the currency of the C&I process into the future.
f) Facilitate a cross-sectorial, landscape approach
There are many causes of deforestation. For this reason, the forest sector cannot be fully separated
from the other sectors. Policy dialogue, communication, assessments and promotion of more
sustainable practices tend to shift to broader land use perspectives. In addition, the emerging
framework of SDG provides a strong opportunity to address crucial cross-sectorial issues impacting the
sustainability of forests and the benefits they provide, by making the contributions and linkages to
other land uses more broadly visible.
This will require substantial work in further developing related forest indicators, particularly on the
“people” aspects of SFM as well as integrated indicators on sustainable agriculture/land use indicators.
As currently social, cultural and governance indicators are sparse, efforts should be taken to further
develop or improve them through using or linking them with indicators used in other sectors, especially
those focused on human development. This interfacing of SFM C&I with other human development–
related indicator sets can help to promote support for the forest sector among local governments and
other sectors.
g) Reinforce capacity building and feedback
The effectiveness of programs depends largely on education programs and staff training, explaining the
importance of understanding and performing assigned tasks. If the purpose of the C&I for SFM and the
role of each individual are not understood, it is difficult to be effective. It is necessary to select the
42
appropriate individuals for M&E and related positions, and provide instructions and full training to the
personnel involved through structured training courses in the use of C&I for SFM.
Providing feedback to people and to programs with respect to their submissions is simple, inexpensive
and highly effective. If the technicians hear back on the information that they are required to submit,
they would know if what they have done is what was expected and if it was considered useful. Without
feedback loops, people may start to question if there is any value to data collection and reporting and
will eventually become less inclined to put any effort into it. In contrast, when people’s efforts are
recognized and, in particular, when they can see how their work has actually been used, they come to
understand its value and are encouraged to continue – and even vamp up – their efforts.49
B. Outlook and Recommendations
For the past two decades, the global community has accumulated experience in the development and
application of C&I for SFM at various levels and they have been recognized as an important means for
assessing progress towards the achievement of SFM. The lessons discussed in this document can be
applied to NFPs, whether establishing new NFP following recently adopted policy, updating existing
NFP following policy reforms, or strengthening them by applying RBM approaches in the NFP.
The C&I framework for sustainability in the forest sector has led to a shared understanding in policy
development and decision-making of the values underpinning SFM, and to a more comprehensive and
balanced portrayal of these range of values in reporting on forests. C&I are an effective tool for
rendering fair and objective decisions and have provided a scientifically credible basis for statements
on forest management, clarity and transparency, as well as a very efficient way to structure data
collection for assessing progress towards the achievement of SFM. They have also enabled countries to
communicate more effectively to the public on the status of SFM.
While challenges remain in developing and using C&I for SFM, they do have the potential to provide a
practical way to apply RBM to NFPs and thus bring the forest sector closer to achieving SDG 15 as well
as contributing to other relevant SDGs. Experts have expressed that there is a need to strengthen
effective monitoring and reporting of forest contributions to SDGs and targets as well as to the UNFF
and relevant Rio Conventions. C&I offer a potentially helpful means for standardizing monitoring and
reporting.
Outcomes from the application of forest sustainability C&I – including their impacts on the landscape
level, such as on the biological resources, soil and water, and the social and economic contributions –
need to be conducted and widely disseminated to the public. This will further strengthen political
support for the use of C&I for SFM, and hopefully also in securing the much need financial resources for
it.
Perrin, B. Implementing the vision: addressing challenges to results-focused management and budgeting. OECD. 50p.
http://www.oecd.org/gov/budgeting/2497163.pdf
49
43
V. Annexes
A. References and Further Reading
Arnold F.E.; Rametsteiner E. and Kleinn C. 2014. User-oriented national forest monitoring planning: a
contribution to more policy relevant forest information provision. International Forestry Review 16(4)
Briz, R.M. 2015. Use of forest criteria and indicators as a framework for guiding implementation of
forest policies, plans and programs in the Philippines. Case study report. Project “Strengthening Criteria
and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management and Their Use in Policy and Practice”, FAO.
Cambodia
National
Forest
Programme
2010-2029.
http://www.cdccrdb.gov.kh/cdc/documents/Sector_Strategy/6_Forestry_Reform/National_Forest_Programme_2010_2
029_Eng.pdf
Cavalcanti, C.B. 2015. Auditoría forestal independiente para las concesiones forestales en Brasil.
Presentación. Taller regional Latinoamericano sobre los criterios e indicadores para el manejo forestal
sostenible. Tarapoto, Perú, 17-19 de junio de 2015.
Ceci, P., Berrahmouni, N. and Bey, A. 2015. Monitoring of agrosilvopastoral systems with Collect Earth
for the Action Against Desertification project. OpenForis Collect Earth presentation. Strengthening
Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management and Their Use in Policy and Practice. Near East
and North Africa Regional Workshop. Cairo, Egypt, 7-9 June 2015.
CEPLAN, 2011: Plan Bicentenario el Perú hacia el 2021. Centro Nacional de Planeamiento Estratégico,
Lima, Perú.
COMIFAC. 2014. Plan de convergence pour la gestion durable des ecosystèmes forestiers d’Afrique
centrale
2015-2025.
file:///C:/Users/Visiteur/Downloads/Plan%20de%20Convergence%20COMIFAC%2020152025_02072014_fr%20(1).pdf
Corbeil, 1986
EFI, 2013. Implementing Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management in Europe.
European Forest Institute, 132 pp.
FAO. 2006. Understanding national forest programmes: Guidance for practitioners. The National Forest
Programme Facility, FAO. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/012/a0826e/a0826e00.pdf
FAO 2012. NFPs in Practice: Ways to improve the implementation of national forest programmes.
Federal Republic of Nigeria. 2015. National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2016-2020.
FRA. 2010. Global Forest Resources Assessment. FAO. http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/fra2010/en/
Flint M. 2003. Easier said than done: A review of Results-Based Management in Multilateral
Development
Institutions.
Available
at:
www.parcinfo.org/documents/Results
Based
Management/Review of RBM in Multilateral Development Institutions - 2003.doc
Gough, A.D., Innes, J.L., Allen, S.D., 2008. Development of common indicators of sustainable forest
management. Ecol. Indic. 8(2), 425-430
Grainger, A., 2012. Forest sustainability indicator systems as procedural policy tools in global
environmental governance. Global Environmental Change, 22 (1), 147-160.
Guldin, R.W., Parrotta, J.A. & Hellström, E. 2005. Working Effectively at the Interface of Forest Science
and Forest Policy: Guidance for Scientists and Research Organizations. IUFRO Task Force on the Forest
Science-Policy
Interface.
IUFRO
Occasional
Paper
No.
17.
http://bcwildfire.ca/ftp/HFP/external/!publish/Web/FFESC/reports/policy.pdf
Herrero Echevarría, J. A. 2015. El uso de los criterios e indicadores como marco y guía para la
implementación y promoción del diálogo sobre políticas, planes y programas forestales en Cuba.
44
Estudio de caso. Proyecto “Fortalecimiento de los criterios e indicadores para la gestión forestal
sostenible y su uso en la política y la practica forestales”. FAO
Hickey, G.M., Innes, J.L., Kozak, R.A., Bull, G.Q., Vertinsky, I. 2005. Monitoring and information reporting
for sustainable forest management: An international multiple case study analysis. For. Ecol.Manage.
209:237–259.
Howell, C., Wilson, A. and Butcher, G. 2015. Achievements in Australia from using a criteria and
indicator framework for forest reporting. Article presented at XIV World Forestry Congress, Durban,
South Africa, 7-11 September 2015. Project “Strengthening Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable
Forest Management and Their Use in Policy and Practice”, FAO.
Khadka, C. and Vacik, H. 2012. Comparing a top-down and bottom-up approach in the identification of
criteria and indicators for sustainable community forest management in Nepal. Forestry 85(1): 145158.
Linser S., Wolfslehner B., 2015. Meeting the Goals for European Forests and the European 2020 Targets
for Forests. Report on the Mid-Term Evaluation of the Goals for European Forests and the European
2020 Targets for Forests, 47, 7th Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe. Forest
Europe Liaison Unit Madrid, Madrid
Malleux, J. 2015. Monitoreo para la conservación del bosque nativo en Argentina. Estudio de caso V.
Proyecto “Fortalecimiento de los criterios e indicadores para la gestión forestal sostenible y su uso en la
política y la practica forestales”. FAO.
Mendoza, G.A., Prabhu, R., 2000a. Development of a methodology for selecting criteria and indicators of
sustainable forest management: a case study on participatory assessment. Environ. Manag. 26, 659–
673.
Mendoza, G.A., Prabhu, R., 2000b. Multiple criteria decision making approaches to assessing forest
sustainability using criteria and indicators: a case study. For. Ecol. Manag. 131, 107–126.
Mendoza, G.A., Prabhu, R., 2003. Qualitative multi-criteria approaches to assessing indicators of
sustainable forest resource management. For. Ecol. Manag. 174, 329–343.
Moore, M. 1998. Creating public value: strategic management in government. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 416 p
Nelkin D. 1979. Scientific knowledge, public policy and democracy: a review essay. Science
communication 1(1): 106–122.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Improving Public Sector Efficiency:
Challenges and Opportunities, 2007. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/gov/budgeting/43412680.pdf
OECD. 2005. Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. Available at:
www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/41/34428351.pdf.
OECD. 2008. The Accra Agenda for Action. http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/45827311.pdf
Onyekuru, J. E. 2015. Uses of criteria and indicators in the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action
Plan for Nigeria. Presentation. Strengthening Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management
and Their Use in Policy and Practice. Africa Regional Workshop. Douala, Cameroon, 27-29 May 2015.
Pautrat, L. 2015. Uso de criterios e indicadores en el marco legal forestal y proceso de consulta pública
para la aprobación del reglamento de la ley forestal y de fauna silvestre del Perú. Estudio de caso.
Proyecto “Fortalecimiento de los criterios e indicadores para la gestión forestal sostenible y su uso en la
política y la practica forestales”. FAO.
Perrin, B. Implementing the vision: addressing challenges to results-focused management and
budgeting. OECD. 50p. http://www.oecd.org/gov/budgeting/2497163.pdf
45
Prabhu, R., Colfer, C.J.P., Dudley, R.G., 1999. Guidelines for Developing, Testing and Selecting Criteria and
Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management. Center for International Forestry Research, Jakarta.
131p+annexes.
Raison, R.J., Brown, A.G., Flinn, D.W. (Eds.), 2001. Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest
Management. IUFRO Research Series 7. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.
Rametsteiner, E., 2001. SFM indicators as tools in political and economic context: actual and potential
roles. In: Raison, R.J., Brown, A.G., Flinn, D.W. (Eds.), Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest
Management. IUFRO Research Series 7. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK, pp. 107–130.
Rush and Ogborne, 1996
Thang Hooi Chiew. 2015. Use of criteria and indicators as a framework for structuring data collection,
assessment and reporting on sustainable forest management in the ASEAN Member States. Case study
report.
TNC 2012. WATER FUNDS Conserving green infrastructure: A guide for design, creation and operation.
Ty Sokhun. National forest programme process in Cambodia. Forest News Vol. XXIII: No. 2 April-June
2009. http://www.fao.org/forestry/18622-025fed8babbe0811bfab443acf65a1c93.pdf
UN, 1992. Agenda 21, Rio declaration, forest principles: drafts. United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro. United Nations, New York
United Nations Development Program (UNDP). 2009. Handbook on Planning, Monitoring and
Evaluating for Development Results. Available at:
http://web.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/handbook/english/documents/pme-handbook.pdf
United Nations Development Group (UNDG). 2011. Results-Based Management Handbook:
Harmonizing RBM concepts and approaches for improved development results at country level.
https://undg.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/UNDG-RBM-Handbook-2012.pdf
United Nations General Assembly. 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E
Viet
Nam
Forestry
Development
strategy
2006-2020.
http://theredddesk.org/sites/default/files/viet_nam_forestry_development_strategy_2.pdf
Weiss, 1997
Wholey, 1983 and 1987
Wolfslehner, B., Vacik, H. and Lexer, M.J. 2005. Application of the analytic network process in multicriteria analysis of sustainable forest management. Forest Ecology and Management. 207 (1-2): 157–
170.
Wolfslehner, B. & Vacik, H. 2011. Mapping indicator models: From intuitive problem structuring to
quantified decision-making in sustainable forest management. Ecological Indicators 11 (2): 274–283.
Web pages
http://www.fao.org/forestry/sfm/en/
http://www.fao.org/forestry/nfp/en/
http://www.fao.org/forestry/ci/en/
http://www.fao.org/forestry/ci/88504/en/
http://www.fao.org/forestry/ci/90348/en/
http://www.fao.org/forestry/18622-025fed8babbe0811bfab443acf65a1c93.pdf
46
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgs
https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf
https://www.wlv.ac.uk/cidt
http://www.ci-sfm.org/
http://www.montrealprocess.org/
https://dt.asu.edu/
http://www.itto.int/
https://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/series/read/90
47
B. Strengthening forest sustainability indicators – roadmap WFC 2015
Mobilizing the full potential of criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management
in policy and practice: the way forward50
8th September 2015
Over the last 25 years criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management (C&I for SFM) have
become a vital tool for developing a common understanding of the key components of sustainable
forest management. They have been adopted and widely applied particularly for international and
national reporting and for forest certification. They have undoubtedly helped to define SFM, providing a
framework for discussion, and have stimulated improved monitoring.
But they have fallen short of the general ambition to arrive at a commonly agreed global set of C&I for
SFM, to use them as a framework to shape policies at different levels and guide management practice, to
assess progress towards sustainability, or to improve communication with actors outside the forest
sector.
Realizing their full potential on these key areas requires a renewed effort at all levels to further develop
and adapt existing C&Is and enhance their use. A new vision is needed, along the following lines:
By 2020 criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management are used by decision makers
in policy and practice at all levels to:




strengthen development of results-based forest-related policies, programs and plans and
monitor their implementation;
promote and provide incentives for the transition to sustainable forestry practices and forest
management certification;
strengthen dialogue with other sectors and to demonstrate the contribution of forests and
forestry to sustainable development and the well-being of society; and to
monitor, assess and report on sustainable forest management and contribute to measuring
progress towards more sustainable natural resources and land use.
Ten proposed actions for moving forward mobilizing the full potential of criteria and indicators
for sustainable forest management to promote and demonstrate sustainability of forest
management
Actions by international and regional bodies:
1. further develop sets of indicators to measure and report on sustainable forest management, to
demonstrate the contribution of forests and forestry to sustainable development and to other
sectors, aiming at sets that are simple, clear and easily understood by policy-makers, stakeholders
and wider society;
2. further streamline C&I-related data collection, monitoring and reporting, building on existing
mechanisms and institutional arrangements; and
This vision and roadmap for C&I is intended to provide voluntary guidance for all are interested in mobilizing the full potential of C&I to
promote and demonstrate sustainable forest management. It was developed by FAO in the context of the project on “Strengthening criteria and
indicators for sustainable forest management”, supported by the Government of Germany. The proposal is based on extensive consultations in
Latin America, Africa, the Near East and Asia in 2014-2015 and was presented and discussed at the World Forestry Congress Global Forest
Indicator Forum on 8th Sept. 2015.
50
48
3. provide broad access to experiences and lessons learned using C&I for SFM and support
research and capacity building on their development and use by different stakeholders, promoting
scaling up of successful applications.
Actions by national and/or sub-national governments:
4. promote results-based forest-related policy and program formulation based on agreed C&I sets
and develop simple sets of criteria and indicators that can be cost-effectively applied in operational
administrative practice, using existing C&I for SFM as a framework;
5. integrate sets of criteria and indicators in the main instruments used to regulate and guide
forest management practices - in legislation, technical guidelines, financial instruments, and
monitoring and evaluation/auditing systems as well as into the national sustainable development
agenda;
6. further develop mechanisms and tools to provide incentives for investment in sustainable
forestry practices by communities and the private sector by improving access rights to resources
and markets based on the use of criteria and indicators;
7. further strengthen forest-related monitoring and information systems aiming to cover key
elements of forest sustainability in a cost-effective way, strengthening the evidence basis for
governing and managing forests;
8. develop communication and public outreach on the contribution of forests and forestry to other
sectors, sustainable development, and societal well-being; and include criteria and indicators for
sustainable forest management and their use in research agendas and curricula in education,
training and capacity development.
Actions by non-governmental stakeholders (forest owners, communities, private sector and related
producer organizations):
9. develop and use simple sets of criteria and indicators as a reference for guiding operational
managerial practice, in monitoring and in reporting, using existing C&I for SFM as a framework;
and
10. use criteria and indicators as a stepping stone to forest certification for non-certified forest
enterprises, including forest management concessions and community enterprises.
49
C. Glossary of Terms
Activity
Actions taken or work performed through which inputs, such as funds, technical assistance and other
types of resources, are mobilized to produce specific outputs.
Baseline
Information gathered at the beginning of a project or program against which variations that occur in the
project or program are measured.
Benchmark
Reference point or standard, including norms, against which progress or achievements can be assessed.
A benchmark refers to the performance that has been achieved in the recent past by other comparable
organizations, or what can be reasonably expected to have been achieved in similar circumstances.
Goal
A specific end result desired or expected to occur as a consequence, at least in part, of an intervention
or activity. It is the higher order objective that will assure national capacity building to which a
development intervention is intended to contribute.
Impact
Impact implies changes in people’s lives. This might include changes in knowledge, skill, behavior,
health or living conditions for children, adults, families or communities. Such changes are positive or
negative long-term effects on identifiable population groups produced by a development intervention,
directly or indirectly, intended or unintended. These effects can be economic, socio-cultural,
institutional, environmental, technological or of other types. Positive impacts should have some
relationship to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), internationally-agreed development goals,
national development goals (as well as human rights as enshrined in constitutions), and national
commitments to international conventions and treaties.
Inputs
The financial, human, material, technological and information resources used for development
interventions.
Mutual Accountability
According to the United Nations Development Action Framework (UNDAF) – a program document
between a government and the United Nations Country Team (UNCT) that describes the collective
actions and strategies of the United Nations to the achievement of national development – mutual
accountability is interpreted to mean the respective accountability of parties working together toward
shared outcomes and it refers to the responsibilities and expected targets of national governments,
donors, and other development partners alike.
Outcome
Outcomes represent changes in the institutional and behavioral capacities for development conditions
that occur between the completion of outputs and the achievement of goals.
Outputs
Outputs are changes in skills or abilities and capacities of individuals or institutions, or the availability
of new products and services that result from the completion of activities within a development
50
intervention within the control of the organization. They are achieved with the resources provided and
within the time period specified.
Performance
The degree to which a development intervention or a development partner operates according to
specific criteria/standard/guidelines or achieves results in accordance with stated plans.
Performance indicator
A performance indicator is a unit of measurement that specifies what is to be measured along a scale or
dimension but does not indicate the direction or change. Performance indicators are a qualitative or
quantitative means of measuring an output or outcome, with the intention of gauging the performance
of a program or investment.
Performance monitoring
A continuous process of collecting and analyzing data for performance indicators, to compare how well
a development intervention, partnership or policy reform is being implemented against expected
results (achievement of outputs and progress toward outcomes).
Results
Results are changes in a state or condition that derive from a cause-and-effect relationship. There are
three types of such changes - outputs, outcomes and impact - that can be set in motion by a
development intervention. The changes can be intended or unintended, positive and/ or negative.
Results based management
Results-based management is a management strategy by which all actors, contributing directly or
indirectly to achieving a set of results, ensure that their processes, products and services contribute to
the desired results (outputs, outcomes and higher level goals or impact) and use information and
evidence on actual results to inform decision making on the design, resourcing and delivery of
programs and activities as well as for accountability and reporting.
Results chain
The causal sequence for a development intervention that stipulates the necessary sequence to achieve
desired results – beginning with inputs, moving through activities and outputs, and culminating in
individual outcomes and those that influence outcomes for the community, goal/impacts and feedback.
It is based on a theory of change, including underlying assumptions.
Results framework or matrix
A results framework or matrix explains how results are to be achieved, including causal relationships
and underlying assumptions and risks. The results framework reflects strategic level thinking across an
entire organization, a country program, a program component within a country program, or a project.
Target
Specifies a particular value that an indicator should reach by a specific date in the future. For example,
“total literacy rate to reach 85 percent among groups X and Y by the year 2010.”
Sources:
United Nations Development Group (UNDG). Results-Based Management Handbook: Harmonizing RBM concepts and
approaches for improved development results at country level, October 2011. Available at: https://undg.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/06/UNDG-RBM-Handbook-2012.pdf
51
D. Additional information on RBM
a) Further explanation of RBM terminology and concepts
While the exact terminology used by different institutions may differ, it is generally agreed that
“results” are the output, outcome(s) and impact that are set in motion by a development intervention.



The impact – often called the General Objective or Goal – refers to the desired longer-term, highImpact – often called the General Objective or Goal – refers to the desired longer-term, high-level
changes (usually at environmental or societal level) to which the program or project aims to
contribute; it represents the ultimate reason WHY the intervention was designed.
The Outcome – often called the Specific Objective or Purpose – is the medium-term effect (typically
on systems or behaviors of the beneficiaries) brought about by delivering a set of outputs; it
describes the main reason WHY the intervention is being implemented.
Outputs – sometimes called a Deliverable or Expected Result – can be considered the immediate
result or end product resulting from a set of activities; it refers to WHAT a program or project aims
to deliver.
Figure 9. Types of Results 51
According the OECD, results are “changes in a state or condition which derive from a cause-and-effect
relationship.” As shown in Figure 12 below, these causal relationships are usually shown in the form
of a results chain, whereby results are the higher level changes that derive from implementing
interventions. There should be a strong credible linkage between each subsequent level of the results
chain – from the resourced activities all the way up to impact (or the overall goal). 52 In other words,
conducting all of the planned activities should enable the program to deliver the intended outputs (i.e.,
program deliverables); the combination of the various outputs should be necessary and sufficient to
attain the expected outcome (i.e., program purpose/objectives); and attaining the outcome should
enable the program to contribute to the desired impact (i.e., program goal).
In addition to the above-described notion of causality, another concept that is central to this basic
“Theory of Change” – which underlies every results-oriented program or project – is that of
51
Adapted from United Nations Development Program (UNDP), Handbook on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating for Development
Results, 2011. Available at: http://web.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/handbook/english/documents/pme-handbook.pdf
52
Flint M (2003). op cit
52
attribution.53 The higher in the results chain (see Figure 12), the less control the program or project
has and the less attribution it can claim for the achievements. This means that:



A program or project team is fully accountable for implementing the planned activities.
The expected outputs are the direct deliverables resulting from execution of activities, yet their
delivery depends upon certain conditions holding true;
Attaining the intended outcomes is even more dependent upon external factors and, therefore,
requires partnerships and the delivery of a combination of various outputs; and
It is generally recognized that a program or project can only contribute to the desired impact, because
it is a common goal that multiple programs and project work towards.
Figure 10. Concepts of Causality and Attribution in the Results Chain 54
b) Principles of RBM
The guiding principles of RBM are described below. 55
From Centre for International Development and Training (CIDT) at the University of Wolverhampton. www.wlv.ac.uk/cidt
Centre for International Development and Training (CIDT) at the University of Wolverhampton, UK (www.wlv.ac.uk/cidt). Adapted
from United Nations Development Program (UNDP), Handbook on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating for Development Results, 2011.
Available at: http://web.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/handbook/english/documents/pme-handbook.pdf
55 Based on UNDP and UNDP, op cit.
53
54 From
53
i.
National/Local Ownership
Ownership – both in terms of its depth and its breadth – is fundamental in formulating and
implementing programs and projects to achieve development results.56


Depth of ownership: Objectives are much more likely to be attained if results frameworks and other
RBM tools are actively used to guide ongoing management actions, rather than being developed
simply to meet a requirement. While tools and systems are essential for RBM, it is just as important
that people understand and appreciate RBM and that they adopt a results-oriented mentality and
approach to their work.
Breadth of ownership: A key aim of RBM is to ensure that national ownership goes beyond a few
select persons to include as many diverse stakeholders as possible. For this reason, M&E activities,
their findings, and any related recommendations should be fully owned by all of those responsible
for the results and those who can make use of them.
ii. Inclusiveness and Engagement of Stakeholders
Active stakeholder engagement is critical for effectively
designing results-oriented programs/policies, effectively
implementing them, and linking the lessons learned to future
programs and policy improvements. Therefore, throughout all
stages of policy-making and programming, it is vital to promote
buy-in and commitment as well as motivate action among all
relevant stakeholders, i.e., government institutions at national,
sub-national and local levels, international development
partners, civil society organizations and the beneficiary
communities themselves.
What is a Stakeholder?
An individual or group that has an
interest in or is affected by (whether
negatively or positively) a given
policy, program or intervention. This
includes the organizations directly
involved in implementation and the
beneficiary populations, as well as
those indirectly concerned by it.
When it comes to stakeholder engagement and inclusiveness, it is important to involve both a diversity
of stakeholders and an adequate number of stakeholders. In addition, participatory approaches to
design, implementation and management, and MEL are recommended.
iii. Accountability and a Focus on Results
Accountability goes hand-in-hand with results, because it is what ensures that assigned entities deliver
the activities and outputs (i.e., results) they have committed to. This principle is based on the approach
encouraged by international agreements such as the Paris Declaration and the Accra Agenda for Action,
which urge planners to think in terms of how they should work together to support various in-country
stakeholders to achieve national priorities and common goals.
As stated in the UN Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review (TCPR) 62/208, “each country must take primary responsibility for its own
development and …the role of national policies and development strategies cannot be overemphasized in the achievement of sustainable
development”.
56
54
In terms of accountability, governments are the primary owner and executing agents of NFPs and are
accountable to their people, through their parliaments, for delivering on national development
objectives (sometimes referred to as national goals, priorities or outcomes). Recognizing that national
outcomes require the collective efforts of multiple stakeholders, the concept of mutual accountability
has become a well-established criterion for development and aid effectiveness. In this regard,
partnerships, joint programs, collaborative M&E, and other consultative efforts are critical for achieving
higher level results.
Nevertheless, accountability is not fungible and must ultimately be attached to a specific actor. As such,
many stakeholders, together, contribute to impacts and outcomes; yet each one should be accountable
for delivering on its specific outputs and on conducting assigned activities.
c) Overview of the Logical Framework Approach (LFA)
The logical framework, or LogFrame, is a commonly used and powerful tool for RBM. Many
development agencies, including national governments, multilateral and bilateral partners, and nongovernment organizations, use LogFrames to summarize the intended results In fact, it is a mandatory
component of programs/projects within many agencies.
The Logical Framework Approach (LFA) is an iterative process of results-oriented analysis, design and
management. It involves:
1. Defining the desired results and their causal relationships (which are specified in the first
column of the LogFrame matrix);
2. Formulating the indicators that can be used to assess the extent to which those results have
been achieved over the course of a program/project (which are listed in the second column of
the LogFrame, alongside the results to which each corresponds);
3. Identifying the sources of data that serves as means of verifying each indicator (which are listed
in the third column of the LogFrame, alongside the indicators to which each Means of
Verification [MoV] corresponds); and
4. the underlying assumptions about the causal relationships within the results chain and the
external factors that may influence success and failure, based on a risk analysis (which belong in
the fourth column of the LogFrame, at the level of each result).
The logical framework can help to organize the thinking around a project, program or policy and can
guide the development of mechanisms for minimizing risks and monitoring, reviewing and evaluating
progress. Completed logical frameworks form the basis of a project plan and are used as a reference
tool for planning, implementation and reporting.
Distinction needs to be made between that process and the documented product of that process, the
logical framework matrix. A quality, participatory process is vital if a useful and effective product is to
be generated. The approach is essentially a way of thinking, or an organizational culture of results.
55
Table 4. The Logical Framework 57
Results Statements (results chain
based on Theory of Change)
Indicators
Means of Verification (MoV)
Assumptions
Impact
(Ultimate benefits for target
population)
Measures of progress
against impact
Data sources to enable
measurement of the
indicator(s) to the left)
Assumptions made from
outcome to impact, based on
risks that the impact will not be
successfully contributed to.
Outcome
(Short to medium term change in
development situation)
Measures of progress
against outcome
Data sources to enable
measurement of the
indicator(s) to the left)
Assumptions made from
outputs to outcome, based on
risks that the outcome will not
be achieved.
Outputs
(Products and servicestangible/intangible- delivered or
provided)
Measures of progress
against output
Data sources to enable
measurement of the
indicator(s) to the left)
Assumptions made from
activities to outputs, based on
risks that the outputs will not be
delivered.
Activities
(Tasks undertaken in order to
produce research outputs)
Milestones for production
of outputs
Data sources to enable
measurement of the
indicator(s) to the left)
Pre-conditions for the
successful implementation of
activities.
Adapted from United Nations Development Program (UNDP) “Handbook on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating for Results.” Available at:
http://web.undp.org/evaluation/handbook/ch2-4.html
57
56
E. Map of Resources (expert interviews, country case studies, etc.)58
58
For more information visit http://www.fao.org/forestry/ci/16608/en/
57