THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL A User’s Guide for Assessing Governance of Forested Landscapes Administ r d b PROGREEN, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, D.C., 20433, USA. No use of this publication may be made for resale or any other commercial purpose without the prior written consent of the PROGREEN Program Management Team. All images remain the sole property of the copyright holder and may not be used for any purpose without written permission from the copyright holder. The fiscal year covered in the report runs from July 1, 2022, to June 30, 2023 (FY23). The financial contri- bution and expenditures reported are reflected up to June 30, 2023. All amounts are in US dollars (US$) unless otherwise indicated Contents Acknowledgments....................................................................................... iii Acronyms................................................................................................... iv Boxes, Figures, and Tables............................................................................. v Summary..................................................................................................... 1 Introduction.................................................................................................3 The Landscape Governance Assessment Tool..................................................11 Moving towards Action............................................................................... 21 Monitoring and Evaluation Use.....................................................................29 Annex I: Challenges and Core Indicators........................................................33 Annex II: Sample Terms of Reference for Senior Consultant............................... 71 Annex III: Sample Agenda for Two-Day Vetting Workshop................................75 Annex IV: Sample Survey for Stakeholder of Indicator Scores............................79 Annex V: Budget Worksheet for Applying the Tool..........................................87 Annex VI: Sample Report Outlines.................................................................89 References.................................................................................................93 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL Acknowledgments Funding for the work reported here came from PROGREEN, the Global Partnership for Sustainable and Resilient Landscapes, a Multi-Donor Trust Fund at the World Bank. The task team leader (TTL) for the project was Anders Jensen. Team members were consul- tants Nalin Kishor, M. Najeeb Khan, and Kenneth Rosenbaum. Carrying out the pilot tests were national consultants Maclean Asamani Oyeh, Zandi Moyo, Bakhodir Kuziyev, Odina Nazarova, and Yaiza Reid Rata. Numerous World Bank staff and consultants shared materials, advice, or comments. These include Paola Agostini, Ines Susana Angulo De Aviles, Diji Chandrasekharan Behr, Juan Pedro Cano, April Connelly, Stephen Danyo, Gabriela Encalada Romero, Ana Maria Gonzalez Velosa, Elena Strukova Golub, David Groves, Nagaraja Rao “Harsh” Harshadeep, Stephane Hallegatte, Pablo Herrera, Neeta Hooda, Werner L. Kornexl, Patricia M. Kristjanson, Andrea Kutter, Stephen Ling, David Maleki, Sydney Noel Moss, Stavros Papageorgiou, Serge Mandiefe Piabuo, Andre Rodrigues Aquino Marcela Rozo, Banu Setlur, Ruth Tiffer- Sotomayor, and Robert Wrobel. Several outside experts commented on early drafts and final deliverables, including Marjory- Anne Bromhead, Doris Capistrano, Benjamin Garnaud, Celine LaVina, Daniel Charles Miller, Cora van Oosten, and Rod Taylor. Others responded to a request for examples of how improved governance led to better conditions on the ground: Till Neeff, Thiago Uehara, Arun Bansal, Sushil Kumar Singla, Thomas Murray, Duval Llaguno Ribadeneira, Tim Cadman, Liu Jinlong, Aurelian Mbzibain, Mary Menton, and Simone Lovera-Bilderbeek. Still other outside experts provided advice and direction: Susanne Bouma, Lori Anna Conzo, Ruby Cubbins, and Patrice Talla. General support and direction came from senior leaders for Environment, Natural Resources, and Blue Economy (ENB) Global Practice at the World Bank, including Garo Batmanian, Tim Brown, Valerie Hickey, and Christian Peter. Support on logistics, administration, publication, and communication came from World Bank staff Luiza Alimova, Emanuella Maria Fernandes Dougherty, Shane Andrew Ferdinandus, Abdurrahman Bashir Karwa, Nodira Akhmedkhodjaeva, Fnu Hanny, Luisa Maria Lopez Bello, Sithie Naz Mowlana, and Liam Mullins. iii Acronyms DPL Development Policy Lending DSS Decision Support System ENB Environment, Natural Resources, and Blue Economy FPIC Free, Prior, and Informed Consent IPF Investment Project Financing LGAT Landscape Governance Assessment Tool LGI Landscape Governance Index M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MSP Measurable, Specific, Plausible (criteria for indicator selection) NGOs Non-governmental organizations PforR Program for Results PROFOR The Program on Forests, a former trust fund at the World Bank PROGREEN The Global Partnership for Sustainable and Resilient Landscapes, a donor trust fund administered by the World Bank RECOFTC Regional Community Forestry Training Centre for Asia and the Pacific SORT Systematic Operations Risk-rating Tool ToR Terms of Reference TTL Task Team Leader WB World Bank iv THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL Boxes, Figures, and Tables Box 1: Definition of Landscapes.......................................................................5 Box 2: Definition of Landscape Governance.....................................................5 Box 3: Other Governance Assessment Tools.....................................................8 Box 4: Strength of Evidence......................................................................... 18 Box 5: Trend Ratings................................................................................... 19 Box 6: Calculating the LGI............................................................................20 Box 7: Checklist to Assure Indicator Set Quality.............................................. 31 Figure 1: Workflow for Using the LGAT.............................................................7 Figure 2: Steps for Scoring the LGAT.............................................................. 15 Figure 3: Decision Support Steps..................................................................23 Figure A1: Steps for Applying the Assessment Tool..........................................73 Figure A2: Steps for Applying the Decision Support System............................. 74 Table 1: The 10 Challenges and the 30 Core Indicators..................................... 13 Table 2: Example of Mapping and Sorting Stakeholders................................... 16 Table A1: The 10 Challenges with Guidance for Scoring the 30 Indicators...........34 v Summary This is a guide to using the Landscape Governance Assessment Tool (LGAT) to measure the strengths and weaknesses of forested landscape governance and identify practical pathways for reform. The tool has been designed for the use of World Bank task teams but can be of value to anyone interested in improving the governance of forest landscapes. That includes governments, development partners, and non- governmental organizations (NGOs). THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL The Need Forested landscapes are vital to the wellbeing of life on Earth. Healthy landscapes support biodiversity, water supply, food markets and value chains, and local traditions in resource security, employment, and overall quality of life. Proper use. Symptoms of weak governance include illegal logging governance of landscapes has a huge impact on resource and poaching, forest degradation, uncontrolled land use management and economic growth. In this context change, unsustainable timber extractions, land tenure inse- governance includes policy making, planning, and admin- curity, and regulatory burdens. Improving governance can istration, as well as factors outside of formal government limit harmful activities and encourage beneficial ones, sup- such as stakeholder engagement, community leadership, porting sustainable use of forest resources. The Response Measuring landscape governance with the LGAT can help identify governance problems, a first step towards needed reforms The LGAT has 30 indicators covering 10 key challenges that Typical items include hiring one or two consultants, organiz- good governance must meet. Scoring the indicators as a desk ing a vetting workshop and proceedings, drafting a policy exercise, in consultation with experts, or with the help of a brief, and debriefing. cross-section of stakeholders, yields a picture of the strengths and weaknesses of the governance framework in play. The tool is designed to promote action. It does not produce theoretical analyses. Instead, it allows users and stake- Once the problems are clear, the tool’s decision support holders to understand challenges and outline actions to system (DSS) provides a structured way to identify work- overcome these challenges. able reforms. The DSS steps include flagging priority areas for reform, brainstorming options, refining, and analyzing Monitoring and evaluation arrangements are built in. Once those options, and arriving at recommendations. the scores of the 30 core indicators have been validated, this scoring provides the baseline values for the gover- The tool is designed to be practical. The assessment and nance related outcomes. This guide includes directions for the application of the DSS can be completed within three the development of indicators for the results framework for months. Budget requirements are deliberately kept low. planned reforms. 2 Introduction The Landscape Governance Assessment Tool (LGAT) is a tool developed by the World Bank to identify the strengths and weaknesses of forested landscape governance and to arrive at practical ways to address the weaknesses. The tool has been designed for the use of World Bank task teams but can be of value to anyone interested in improving the governance of forest landscapes. That includes governments, development partners, and NGOs. This first version of the tool is a work-in-progress. Lessons learned from its use will help shape improvements. Comments on the tool are welcome. Users may send comments to progreen@worldbank.org. THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL Why Care About Landscape Governance? Forested landscapes are vital to the wellbeing of Landscape governance affects how people interact life on Earth. They provide ecosystem services (e.g., reg- with landscapes. The term governance might suggest ulation of water flow, conservation of biodiversity, control regulation and enforcement, but governance encompasses of soil erosion, and carbon sequestration) and often are far more. It includes policy making, planning, administra- sources of timber and non-timber forest products. On a tion, and other factors within government and stakeholder local scale, these landscapes support the livelihoods of involvement, value chains, and other factors outside of gov- rural people. On a regional scale, these landscapes pro- ernment (see box 2). vide flood control, clean water, food, fiber, and sometimes energy to urban and rural residents. On a global scale, Governance has a huge impact on resource man- these landscapes mitigate climate change and conserve agement and economic growth. Weak governance biodiversity1. (For a definition of landscapes, see box 1.) can lead to illegal logging and poaching, forest degrada- tion, uncontrolled land use change, unsustainable timber extraction, land tenure insecurity, and regulatory burdens. These can affect employment, incomes, food security, bio- 1 In this guide, unless the context indicates otherwise, the terms “land- diversity, water supply, and overall quality of life. Better scape” and “landscapes” refer specifically to forested landscapes and “governance” and “landscape governance” refer to governance of governance can limit harmful activities and encourage ben- forested landscapes eficial ones, supporting sustainable use of forest resources. The Importance of Measurement Measuring the quality of governance can help aspects of landscape governance, such as ecosystem resto- shape actions to improve governance. Without mea- ration or reducing corruption, yield valuable insights but do surement and monitoring, leading to a comprehensive not capture the bigger picture. picture of governance concerns, efforts to improve gover- nance tend to be ad hoc. When reforms happen with no Some of these tools have had limited use because they measured baseline, judging their impact is hard. do not link measurement to action. They identify issues but do not point to pathways that lead to improved out- Aware of this, diverse groups have developed tools and comes. For a tool to be useful for the design of projects or approaches for measuring landscape governance and programs, it should yield options for reform and outline its challenges (see box 3). costs and benefits for consideration. It should also prioritize and sequence reforms to link the design and preparation While these tools and approaches have clear with considerations of budget and timing. strengths and have been widely tested, their use by the World Bank has been limited. Lacking suitable tools, many World Bank projects and programs have been designed without a guid- Some of these tools have had limited use because they ing framework that measures governance to help are too narrowly focused. Tools that deal with specific develop reform options. 4 Box 1: Definition of Landscapes Landscapes are areas of land that are so physically, biologically, socially, or economically interconnected that the best management of the land’s resources will require coordination, accommodation, or regulation of human activity across the entire area. Two attributes determine the boundaries of landscapes. The first is biophysical. Landscapes are typically large and contiguous. The lands within the bounds usually are not uniform, but they are adjacent and often share some characteristics such as climate or biota. The second attribute is social. Every landscape has people who want to use the resources. The people may be diverse, and their goals are often in conflict. These two attributes are linked. The way people want to use the land may suggest the best physical location for drawing the landscape’s boundaries. For example, if the chief concern is water supply and quality, it may be best to consider catchment basins as landscapes. If the concern is fostering development of a set of rural villages, the fields, forests, and waterways that the villagers use may define the landscape. If the concern is conservation of migratory ani- mals, the landscape, for practical purposes, may share the boundaries of a province or nation where governance reforms are achievable. Box 2: Definition of Landscape Governance Landscape governance is the process of multi-sector, multi-actor, and multi-level interactions and spatial decision-making at the land- scape level. It encompasses all the factors that affect how people use resources in the landscape. Much landscape governance stems from formal government and how the government makes and applies laws, budgets and disburses funds, provides information, and so forth. Other aspects of governance emerge from formal and informal institutions outside of government. For example, customary norms about land ownership may be powerful governance factors within a traditional community. Businesses, markets, and the demand for land or goods may affect how people use or abuse forest resources. Religion, traditional social structures, and modern civil society organizations can all be influences as well and so are part of the larger governance picture. 5 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL Based on the study of the strengths and limitations of existing tools and the needs of World Bank teams, the LGAT has been designed to: ✤ Focus on forested landscapes as a whole, rather ✤ Design actions to address governance challenges. than on single aspects of landscapes, such as their forests or farmlands. ✤ Monitor project implementation and measure base- lines and progress towards project objectives. ✤ Focus on governance more broadly, rather than on narrow aspects of governance, such as control of ✤ Adapt to various scales and intensities of use, from crime or corruption. a rapid assessment of a single landscape to more general program planning. ✤ Adapt to a variety of situations, rather than on a single type of action, such as land restoration or ✤ Allow for comparisons of governance of a land- protected area management. scape over time. The New Tool This guide presents the Landscape Governance The tool is also useful for the monitoring and evaluation Assessment Tool (LGAT) and the Decision Support of reform efforts. The LGAT assessment provides a base- System (DSS). It is intended for people addressing a variety line against which reform progress can be measured. As of problems linked to forested landscapes, such as alle- explained later in this guide, users can also augment the viating rural poverty, restoring degraded lands, meeting core LGAT assessment with customized indicators to mon- national climate commitments, or conserving biodiversity. itor specific reforms. The LGAT measures the strengths and weaknesses of Figure 1 illustrates how the LGAT is applied. The first step governance in a forested landscape. Drawing on expert is assessment, which assigns scores from one to five to 30 and stakeholder knowledge, the LGAT assesses the quality indicators to produce an index rating. The next steps seek of governance and produces a summary rating, called the practical reforms. After producing the recommendations, Landscape Governance Index (LGI). it will be up to decision makers to select and implement actions. As figure 1 indicates, the use of the LGAT can be The tool can be used at many stages of a project, but it is iterative. At some point after the actions are in place, the primarily intended to provide an informed starting point user2 can reassess the quality of governance and determine for discussing and designing governance reforms. The whether the actions have led to progress. Depending on the DSS component creates a roadmap for reform by identifying findings of that assessment, the user and decision makers priority areas, generating ideas for reform, and analyzing may adjust the actions or come up with new ones. them to arrive at practical ways forward. Overall, the tool identifies reform pathways that have a good chance of making a difference in the landscape. The LGAT score demonstrates the need, while stakeholder and expert involvement in both the measurement and DSS 2 This guide refers to anyone applying the tools as the user. In some cases, steps shape and garner support for reforms. The DSS analy- the user may be a single assessor, and in other cases the user will include supervised people, such as staff members, consultants, or workshop sis screens the reforms to identify those likely to be practical facilitators. For simplicity, this guide will refer to a single user even though and effective. multiple people may be filling that role. 6 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL Figure 1: Workflow for Using the LGAT Use core indicators to assess governance challenges Decide and Assess implement Report on Identify most good actions important for reform Recommend Prioritize areas for reform Analyze Brainstorm Determine Come up with which options possible solutions are practical and effective 7 Box 3: Other Governance Assessment Tools Here are some of the tools developed to measure aspects of gov- ernance. While each is well-suited for its intended use, none have all the characteristics that PROGREEN is seeking in a forested land- scape governance assessment tool. The World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators The LandScale Assessment Framework The CCBA Sustainable Landscapes Rating Tool The Conservation International Landscape Assessment Framework (linked to LandScale) The Tropenbos & EcoAg Assessing Landscape Governance Tool The PROFOR tool for Assessing and Monitoring Forest Governance The PROFOR tool for Forest Tenure Assessment The IUCN and WRI Opportunities Assessment Methodology The WRI Governance of Forests Initiative Indicator Framework The ICCWC indicator framework for Assessment of Forest and Wildlife Crime The WRI Restoration Diagnostic The World Bank Land Governance Assessment Framework The IIED tool for Governance Assessment for Protected and Conserved Areas The Transparency International Forest Governance Risk Tool The WCS Natural Resource Governance Tool 8 The contents of this guide This guide provides step-by-step instructions for using the context should inform the entry points for engagement on LGAT and outlines instructions for the creation of custom- governance as part of the story line of the project. ized indicators for monitoring and evaluation (M&E). The landscape governance challenges and how they will be In addition, the guide includes supporting information on addressed need to be included in the Theory of Change. the use of the tools in the annex. Actions needed to improve landscape governance must be stated in the project’s Theory of Change and described ✤ Annex I contains the 30 core indicators that make up in more detail in the relevant component(s). It is also rec- the LGAT, along with notes on how to score each one. ommended to include governance in the headings of the relevant components to indicate the focus of the project. ✤ Annexes II through VI contain templates for terms of reference, agendas, budgets, and reports related to If landscape governance is an end in itself, the Project tool use. Development Objective needs to include either a short- or long-term outcome on it. Furthermore, if certain landscape governance related issues put the achievement of the Project Upfront Guidance to Task Teams Development Objective at risk, they must be reflected in the Systematic Operations Risk-rating Tool (also known as the World Bank task teams can use this tool to identify land- SORT) and in the critical assumptions within the description scape governance challenges that need to be addressed of the Theory of Change. as part of the operational cycle of a project and develop- ment of the Project Appraisal Document. The tool can be Guidance on M&E is found in the chapter on M&E (page 29). used to improve governance as an end in itself through strengthening participation, transparency, accountability, The LGAT scoring process is flexible. Users can choose to and so forth. Alternatively, landscape governance could simplify the process to better fit their needs, balancing the need strengthening for a given project to achieve some need for detail and accuracy against the time, budget, and other aim. In either case, the sectoral and institutional other resources needed to conduct an assessment. 9 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL 10 The Landscape Governance Assessment Tool Scoring the LGAT The LGAT is based on a framework of 10 challenges, captured through a set of 30 core indicators. Once scored, the LGAT produces an LGI that paints a picture of the status and trends in governance. The challenges and indicators are set out in short form in table 1, and are presented in more detail with scoring scales and explanations in Annex I. THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL If the user only wants a general perspective on landscape It may also be useful to consider prior and ongoing efforts to governance concerns, indicators can be scored infor- address resource problems, and to consider the timeliness mally for rapid assessment. A single user or a small group of new efforts: can score the 30 LGAT indicators quickly as a desk exercise. ✤ What is the history of key donor programs and activ- If the user wants to design and monitor governance ities in the area? reforms in a landscape, then the user can follow the full ✤ Is there a new window of opportunity to address a process shown in figure  2. This multi-step approach will long-standing problem? gather stronger evidence for the scores and reduce user bias. Stakeholder involvement will also strengthen acceptance of What landscape is the prime setting for these concerns? the resulting scores. And, as described later in this guide, step 5 can also become the starting point for applying the DSS. The LGAT initiator may have already answered this question. That is, the initiator may have determined that a particular landscape was to be the focus of actions. However, it may Step 1: Initiating the Process also be that the initiator began with concerns about certain problems — such as rural migration to urban areas due to A development partner—such as the World Bank, a limited employment opportunities, growing food insecu- bilateral donor, an NGO, or a government—will initiate rity due to changing climate and precipitation patterns, or the assessment. A single person should be put in charge biodiversity loss due to conversion of natural habitats to of the process as the user. This may be someone from within agriculture — and the user needs to identify the landscapes the initiating organization or it may be an outside consul- where these problems can be addressed. In either case, the tant. Annex II presents sample terms of reference (ToR) for a LGAT is designed with a landscape focus and the user needs senior consultant. Whoever the user is, the user should have to determine the landscape of concern. access to this guide. Who are the key stakeholders? Step 2: Setting the Scope The assessment will draw on stakeholders to validate indi- cator scores. Stakeholder input is crucial to ensure the Users need to collect information on some preliminary issues. accuracy and credibility of the assessment. For that reason, the user needs to understand which stakeholders have a What are the concerns that are driving an interest in the vested interest in the landscape. Performing a stakeholder application of the LGAT? mapping exercise, using a tool like NetMap3, can help the user gain a broader understanding of the people, their Understanding the concerns at hand will help answer the motives, alliances, coalitions, influences, and how these remaining questions. affect the problems and the possible solutions. To better understand stakeholders, it can be useful to create a table, ✤ Is there currently a problem with the use of a resource? sorting them by how strongly they affect resource use, if not ✤ Is there planned development of a resource that is into a single ordered list, at least into three broad groups: likely to cause problems or create opportunities? strong influence, moderate influence, lesser influence (see ✤ Are there new stresses of concern appearing on the table 2). Another useful method for sorting is to arrange horizon, such as changing precipitation patterns due stakeholders by their level of interest in how the landscape to climate change or increased demand for cleared is managed: high interest, moderate interest, little interest. land for agriculture? It is good practice to engage with people who are highly ✤ Are there non-resource issues, like persistent poverty affected by landscape decisions or who have traditional or or organized crime, that are clearly tied to resource use and that need to be addressed? 3 For more on NetMap, visit https://netmap.wordpress.com/about/. 12 Table 1: The 10 Challenges and 30 Core Indicators AGENCY COORDINATION 1 ✤ Coordination and power imbalances between and within agencies of government 1. How well do agencies affecting the landscape coordinate their work? POLICY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORKS ✤ Transparent approaches to creating, reviewing, and revising policies and laws. ✤ Workable and comprehensive policies and laws. 2 ✤ A commitment to implementation 2. When the government adopts new policies and laws affecting landscape management, is the process transparent? 3. Do policies or laws have gaps or weaknesses inconsistent with good landscape management? 4. Do agencies in the landscape implement the responsibilities assigned to them under policies and laws? MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION ✤ Opportunities and obstacles for stakeholders to engage ✤ Motivation and capacity of stakeholders 3 ✤ Government responsiveness to consultation inputs 5. Do stakeholders outside government have adequate opportunities to participate in landscape-related decisions? 6. Do important stakeholder groups outside the government seek to effectively participate in landscape management and planning? 7. How often are government decisions related to landscapes modified or influenced by inputs from multiple stakeholders? TENURE SECURITY ✤ Clear and well-defined rights 4 ✤ Harmonization of rights ✤ Workable means of settling tenure conflicts 8. Are all types of tenure rights clear? 9. Where people have customary or traditional rights, are those rights recognized under law? 10. Do practical tenure conflict resolution mechanisms exist? LANDSCAPE PLANNING ✤ Using a landscape focus ✤ Using effective processes 5 11. 12. Where agencies produce separate plans affecting the landscape, are the plans coordinated? Does planning in the landscape use high-quality data? 13. Does planning in the landscape consider improvement of livelihoods as a central challenge? 14. Does planning for major investments and activities in the landscape include environmental and social impact analyses (ESIA)? 15. Do plans try to address the drivers of unsustainable resource use? Challenges Issues Core Indicators Source: Original table produced to illustrate the LGAT challenges. GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION ✤ Financial, human, and other resources ✤ Accountability and transparency ✤ Effective management and implementation 6 16. How adequately funded are government programs managing resources in the landscape? 17. For government programs managing natural resources in the landscape, are regular performance assessments undertaken? 18. Do government programs affecting landscape management include regular monitoring? 19. Do agencies affecting landscape management have the capacity to carry out the functions assigned to them? POLITICAL ECONOMY ✤ Cooperation and willingness to work together for the common good 7 ✤ ✤ Stable policy regimes Consideration of interests of future generations 20. When there are grievances over resource use, are there effective redress mechanisms? 21. Are there frequent changes in the policies related to resource management in the landscape? 22. Do stakeholders include powerful champions for sustainable landscape management? RULE OF LAW ✤ Consistent and equitable application of the law ✤ Adequate law enforcement capacity 8 ✤ Control of corruption 23. In matters tied to resources in the landscape, does adoption, implementation, and enforcement of laws adhere to the principles of accountability, quality of law, good process, and good administration of justice? 24. Does the government have sufficient enforcement capacity to control resource-related crimes? 25. Do stakeholders in the landscape perceive corruption related to natural resource use to be common? SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION ✤ Sustainable commodity supply chains, incorporating values of environmental services 9 ✤ Equitable distribution of benefits and costs 26. Does the government promote sustainable supply chains through various incentives? 27. Are producers adopting sustainable practices throughout the supply chain? 28. Are equitable, effective benefit sharing mechanisms in place in the landscape? RESILIENCE OF LANDSCAPES & PEOPLE 10 ✤ ✤ Plans that try to anticipate stresses Capacity to respond to foreseeable stresses 29. Does planning consider environmental, economic, political, and social stress that threaten the landscape? 30. In practice, is the government helping people become more resilient to stressors? practical knowledge of landscape management even if they Users should also consider issues and actors outside the ordinarily have little influence on decision making. These landscape. Factors that govern landscape use will almost people may include sub-groups such as landless people, always extend beyond the landscape’s boundaries. For youth, or women. example, if international trade is affecting resource use in an area, then governance of the processing and trade of the Figure 2: Steps for Scoring the LGAT STEP 1 Initiator starts the process; designates people to apply to the tool (the users or user 2 User gathers information on scope: landscape, problems of concern, affected stakeholders 3 User scores LGAT indicators and assesses their trends 4 User vets scores with small number of experts 5 User vets scores with larger group of stakeholders through workshop or survey 6 User prepares report on LGAT scoring Source: Original figure produced to illustrate the LGAT scoring steps. resource must be considered even if those activities hap- some part of the assessment must look at issues from a pen outside of the landscape. If access to the landscape national perspective. strongly affects its use, then governance of transport infra- structure development is part of landscape governance. If national policies and budgets affect activities in the area, 15 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL Table 2: Example of Mapping and Sorting Stakeholders LEVELS OF LAND/INFRASTRUCTURE OTHER USERS OTHERS INFLUENCE MANAGEMENT AGENCIES GOVERNMENT Strong ✤ Forest Department ✤ Agriculture ✤ Cattle ranchers ✤ University ✤ National Parks Ministry ✤ Farmers extension service Department ✤ Local ✤ Forest concession ✤ Farmers’ municipalities holders cooperative ✤ Heads of villages Moderate ✤ Water & Energy Ministry ✤ Environmental ✤ Small-scale miners ✤ International Protection ✤ Illicit traders in donors Agency forest products ✤ Environmental ✤ Mining Ministry NGOs ✤ The army ✤ The media ✤ Parliament ✤ Local religious leaders Lesser ✤ Highway Department ✤ Finance Ministry ✤ Minorities & ✤ Health, education ✤ Justice Ministry women & disaster relief ✤ Office of the ✤ Herbal medicine NGOs President collectors ✤ The courts ✤ Charcoal producers Source: Original table produced to illustrate LGAT stakeholder mapping. Step 3: Initial Scoring of the For example, if agency coordination gets a low score, the user could supply an example of where lack of coordination LGAT Indicators resulted in a poor outcome. For more guidance on scoring, see the notes in Annex I. The user needs to do an initial scoring of the tool’s indicators. The LGAT uses 30 indicators, presented in detail in Annex I The user should record the strength of evidence for each along with notes on scoring each indicator. score. See box 4 for instructions on assessing the strength of evidence. The purpose of recording the strength of evi- The initial scoring of the 30 indicators is a desk exercise. dence is to encourage users to rely on strong sources, For each indicator, the user should assign a score (from one increasing the reliability and objectivity of the scores. to five) and state the basis of that score. To underpin low scores, it is useful to include examples of specific prob- The user should assign a trend to each score. See box 5 lems, for instance, inconsistent application of the law or for instructions on scoring trends. The trend score should signs of insufficient budgets. If possible, the user should assess stability of the conditions, anticipating changes in the note how the measured quality is affecting the landscape. coming one to two years. The purpose of the trend score 16 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL is to make the LGAT more sensitive to change, since gover- preferred way to do this vetting is through an in-person nance can change slowly. In future assessments, changes stakeholder workshop. Besides vetting, a workshop gives may register as an improving trend before the base score opportunities to inform stakeholders about landscape gov- of the indicator changes. The user should also note the ernance and efforts to improve it. Further, it can become a strength of evidence for the trend score. venue for stakeholders to learn about each other’s values and concerns. The user should use the LGAT spreadsheet to capture scoring and ratings and produce charts. The designers The user should convene the workshop within the of the LGAT have created a spreadsheet for entering scores landscape being assessed. This is best practice to make and ratings. The user should enter the scores and ratings attendance easier for local stakeholders. The user should into the spreadsheet, which will automatically produce bring together 25 to 30 stakeholders, aiming for repre- some basic charts and an index value from the scores. The sentation of multiple interests and backgrounds, and seek spreadsheet will average the indicator scores for each chal- gender balance. lenge and then average the 10 challenge scores to arrive at the index value (the LGI). See box 6 for details on calculation Annex III presents a sample agenda for a stakeholder of the LGI. Similarly, the spreadsheet will calculate average workshop. The vetting portions include: trends for each challenge and for governance overall. ✤ A brief presentation recapping the background and The user should then produce an informal report and pre- the scores. sentation so that these preliminary results can be shared and vetted. ✤ A breakout session to allow stakeholders to discuss and comment on the indicator scores in small groups. Step 4: Vetting with Experts ✤ A plenary session for the groups to report back and the user to capture their input. The user should vet the scores with a small circle of experts. The group should include roughly four to six peo- If the presence of some stakeholders tends to inhibit others ple from government, civil society, or academia, reflecting (e.g., men inhibiting women, elders inhibiting youth, senior a variety of perspectives, if possible. After sharing the ini- government officials inhibiting junior staff), the user can tial scores with the experts, the user can meet with them organize the breakout groups to minimize inhibition. either individually or convene them as a focus group to get their thoughts. The user typically will also use the stakeholder work- shop to provide input for the first steps of the DSS, After consulting with the experts, the user should revise described below. Even if the user did not intend to use all the indicator scores to reflect the experts’ input. If there the DSS steps to produce recommendations for actions, the is unanimous expert agreement on a score, the strength of first steps on setting priorities and brainstorming are simple evidence rating of the score can be raised to strong. and their outputs are useful, so they should be considered. If in-person consultations are not feasible, a survey Step 5: Vetting with a Broader and virtual workshop can be used instead. Sometimes, because of time or cost, an in-person workshop is imprac- Group of Stakeholders tical. In those cases, the user may vet the scores through a stakeholder survey. Ideally, the survey would be followed by After vetting with the expert group, the user should a short stakeholder meeting, perhaps virtual, in which the vet the scores with a larger group of stakeholders. The user shares the survey results and begins applying the DSS 17 Box 4: Strength of Evidence Each indicator score and trend rating should include the strength of evidence used to arrive at the score or rating, assigning it to one of three categories: 1. Weak evidence, for example: ✤ The opinion or knowledge of a single assessor ✤ Consultation with a single non-expert informant ✤ Reliable but possibly outdated sources 2. Medium strength evidence, for example: ✤ A report by a journalist or news agency ✤ Routinely collected administrative data ✤ A document published on the website of an NGO ✤ Consultation with an expert ✤ Triangulation of two or more forms of weak evidence 3. Strong evidence, for example: ✤ A peer-reviewed document ✤ A document published on the website of the government, a think tank/research organization, or an international development partner ✤ Statistically significant survey findings ✤ Triangulation of two or more forms of medium-strength evidence An expert can be a government official, an academic, an NGO official, or anyone else widely acknowledged to be well-versed and relatively unbiased on the topic. When seeking evidence for a score, if there is no evidence that is specific to the landscape, use national evidence, but make a note about that use. If the linkage between conditions at the national level and landscape level is weak, reduce the strength of evidence. If the key evidence is published matter more than three years old, drop the strength-of-ev- idence rating by one step. If there are both older and newer published reports, give more weight to the newer reports. However, comparing older and newer reports may be useful in assessing trends. Adapted from guidance in Annex 7 of the “International Forestry Knowledge Programme (KNOWFOR): Final Evaluation” report prepared by Clear Horizon, November 2017, for the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID)—http://www.oecd.org/derec/unitedkingdom/ International-Forestry-Knowledge-Programme.pdf 18 Box 5: Trend Ratings Along with the current score for each indicator, users should enter a trend rating. To the best of your knowledge, does the condition measured by this indicator appear to be: –2 –1 0 +1 +2 Getting Getting Staying Getting Getting much worse worse the same/ better much better No trend ✤ Please provide evidence or an explanation for your assessment of the trend. ✤ If there is no evidence of a trend, score the trend as 0. ✤ Scores at the extremes (2 or –2) require especially strong and specific justification. Example: New prime minister strongly backs policy and law revisions for landscape management—this might justify a 2 rating for an indicator under Challenge 2, Policy and Legal Frameworks. Example: New agency budget makes no provision for updating land use plans. This might justify a –2 rating for an indicator under Challenge 5, Landscape Planning. Ideally, the trend rating is forward-looking. It is a prediction. However, for purposes of gathering evidence to support the trend rating, the user may have to look back at events of the past year. 19 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL steps. Asking for reactions to scores on 30 indicators cre- Repeating the Assessment ates a rather long survey, and the user may find it difficult to get people to participate. The user can create a shorter sur- As suggested in figure 1, users should plan on repeat- vey in two ways. The first is to ask for reactions to the average ing the assessment periodically, approximately every score for each of the 10 challenges (a sample of such a sur- two years. vey is in Annex IV). The second is to break the indicators up into sets of 10 and break the stakeholders into three groups, The first assessment provides the baseline of landscape gov- surveying each group to get reactions to 10 scores. ernance, and the repeat assessment will determine progress over the baseline. This repeat measurement can be simply a desk exercise, vetted with a small group of experts, or Step 6: Reporting involve a full stakeholder workshop. In either case, it should take less time and cost less than the initial assessment. The After scoring and vetting the indicators, the user can pre- basic research done for the initial assessment will serve for pare a short report on the scoring process and results. If the repeat assessment, with minor updates. If the same peo- the work includes some DSS steps, the user can report on ple are still available to carry out the work, the learning curve those as well. for staff and experts will be short. Box 6: Calculating the LGI The LGAT data entry spreadsheet calculates the LGI and associated trend auto- matically. To calculate the LGI manually: 1. For each challenge, calculate the simple average of the scores for the indicators under that challenge. This will produce 10 average scores. 2. Average the 10 average scores to arrive at the principal LGI score. Each challenge gets an equal weight. 3. For each challenge, average the trend ratings for the indicators under that challenge. 4. Average the 10 average challenge trends to arrive at the overall LGI trend. 20 Moving towards Action Decision Support THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL The term “Decision Support System” can describe any Step 1: Setting Priorities and of a broad set of tools and approaches to support man- agement, operations, or planning. Some people use the Brainstorming term DSS in a narrow sense to refer to computer-based, quantitative models that allow decision makers to sim- Setting priorities for reform is an exercise that can be ulate the effects of a proposed action. Since the 1980s, added to the stakeholder workshop after vetting the foresters have used these kinds of DDSs to predict the LGAT scores. The user poses the following question to the effects of forest management on forest growth and yield. stakeholders, “Which of the 10 challenges are the most In recent years, more sophisticated models have allowed important to address and improve?” for insights into the effects of ecosystem management on a variety of parameters (Reynolds 2005). Researchers have The user then conducts a vote, which can take several forms: developed model-based DSSs for landscape manage- ment decisions, (e.g., Marano et al. 2019; Pechanec et al. ✤ Ranked voting. The user hands out a sheet list- 2015) including decisions concerning governance (e.g., ing the 10 challenges to each stakeholder and asks Bethwell, Sattler, and Stachow 2022) that typically focus them to assign rankings to each challenge from most on a specific landscape or ecosystem type. In a broader important (1) to least important (10). The user collects sense, DSSs include all sorts of quantitative and qualitative the sheets and adds up the assigned ranks to arrive at tools to aid decision makers.4 a group ranking. The DSS steps presented here constitute a form of struc- ✤ Sticker voting. The user places 10 sheets of paper tured decision making.5 The steps will help users arrive at on the wall, each sheet labeled to represent one of recommended actions for reform to landscape governance. the 10 challenges. The user gives each stakeholder They do not replace the decision maker but instead give the three stickers or sticky notes and asks them to place decision maker options and analyses that can lead to better them on the challenges that they think are most decisions. The steps are largely qualitative, both in the anal- important. A stakeholder can place more than one ysis and in the results they provide. In that sense, the steps sticker on a sheet, but each stakeholder gets no are like other qualitative decision support tools, such as par- more than three stickers. If the user gives different ticipatory mapping and photovoice (Reed et al. 2020), and classes of stakeholders different colors of stickers can be useful in any forested landscape. (say, green for government, red for donors, and blue for civil society), the distribution of stickers will show Figure 3 presents the DSS steps. Perhaps the project only both the overall vote and how each group voted. has time and budget for the initial setting of priorities and brainstorming actions (figure 3, step1). This step is simple, it ✤ Show of hands. The user can simply ask the stake- draws on stakeholder knowledge, and incidentally it tends holders to vote on which challenges are most to build stakeholder interest and support for governance important by show of hands. The user calls for votes reform. The remaining steps, involving refining and ana- on one challenge at a time, instructing the stake- lyzing the ideas for actions, to arrive at recommendations, holders that they can vote for no more than three can be done as a desk exercise, although involving decision challenges. The user must take care to count votes makers in the process can build support for implementation accurately and to guard against people voting too of the recommended actions. many times. If the workshop is virtual, the voting can be done through a poll. 4 See, for example, the overview of landscape-related decision tools in Chazdon and Guariguata (2018). 5 For an introduction to structured decision making in natural resource Brainstorming on possible actions can be added to the management, see Bonnot et al. 2019, pp. 8–9. stakeholder consultations. The brainstorming session 22 Figure 3: Decision Support Steps STEP 1 Stakeholder vetting workshop for LGAT takes additional steps to identify priorities and brain- storm interventions. 2 User refines the interventions and adds to the list 3 User eliminates clearly impractical interventions and evaluates the remaining interventions, scoring them on several factors 4 Based on scores, user selects the best pathways forward 5 User vets selections with key stakeholders 6 User writes up results in policy brief Source: Original figure produced to illustrate the DSS steps. should begin with a careful explanation of the purpose ✤ With a small group of participants, the user could of the session. The participants should suggest practical source ideas in a plenary session. With a larger actions that the government or other willing organizations group, the user could divide the participants into can implement in a reasonable amount of time, and that breakout groups. are likely to have good results. The user can share some or even all of the examples of actions listed in annex I, if they ✤ The user could allow free-form discussion, cover- think it would help the participants. This may be especially ing ideas relevant to any of the challenges, or could helpful to stakeholders with limited knowledge of land- work through the challenges, starting with those scape governance. given the highest priority and working down the list, perhaps taking the five or seven lowest prior- Any of several methods for brainstorming can be applied. ity challenges as a single group. If using breakout 23 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL groups, the user could assign each group a specific Ideally, to be analyzed, a suggestion needs to be specific challenge but allow input from all participants on enough so that the user can answer questions like these: each challenge when the groups report back to the plenary session. • What kinds of activities will the action undertake? Are these either spelled out or clearly implied? ✤ Instead of a discussion, the user could put up poster sheets representing each challenge and invite the • What kinds of outputs will those activities pro- participants to walk around and write ideas for duce? How will they be used and by whom? actions on the sheets. However, there is no need to become too specific. ✤ The user can also allow participants to submit addi- Future decision makers and implementers can fill in the tional ideas that come to mind after the workshop. fine details. The user should leave contact information with the participants for this purpose. Bounded: Actions need to have clear bounds in space and time. Normally, spatial bounds are clear. All the actions will occur within a part or the whole of the Step 2: Revise and Refine the landscape, within a particular jurisdiction, or within a particular organization. List of Actions Regarding time, projects with donor funding must Suggested actions that come out of the stakeholder have a beginning and an end with a commitment to workshop are likely to vary in quality and need to be deliver results during a reasonable time frame. A pro- refined. The user takes the suggested actions one at a time posal to “Educate key members of the next Parliament and determines whether they are concrete and useful. If not, about landscape management through a study tour” the user considers whether the action can be easily modi- has an uncertain start date, depending on when the fied to meet those criteria. next Parliament sits. A project to “Establish a climate change research wing at the agricultural college” has Concrete actions are (1) specific and (2) bounded. no clear time frame and no end date. It could be bet- ter framed as “Establish and provide three years of Specific: If you cannot outline the kind of activities funding for a climate change research wing at the agri- an action would involve, who would be doing those culture college. actions, and how the actions would be carried out, it will be difficult to say whether the action is worthwhile. Useful actions must (1) address one or more challenges and A statement like “Agencies active in the landscape (2) be likely to have a measurable effect if implemented. should meet often” is too general. A more specific action would be, for example, “Provincial agriculture Addressing a challenge: Actions should address a and forestry departments will meet regularly to discuss governance challenge. Some suggested actions may the planning and monitoring of activities.” Another be favorite projects only distantly connected to gov- example, “Revise the forest law” is too vague and ernance. For example, a proposal to “Give the sheep could be replaced with, “Conduct an assessment of herders dogs to protect the sheep from wolves” isn’t the forest law to identify the reforms needed to bet- really about governance. A proposal to “Build a new ter implement carbon emissions trading, payments headquarters for the forest agency” does not clearly for environmental services, and benefit sharing” or address any governance challenge. In contrast, a pro- “Revise forest regulations to strengthen recognition of posal such as “Relocate the headquarters of the forest traditional ownership rights.” agency, the parks agency, and the wildlife agency to a 24 single building to improve communication and coordi- target for the total number of actions to produce at this nation” is more clearly tied to a challenge. stage, however, 10 is too few, and 100 is too many. Likely to have a measurable effect: An action should lead to a measurable improvement in governance if Step 3: Sorting implemented effectively. The effect of the action can be direct, for example, “Reform the water law to recognize Sorting of actions involves the removal of weak options traditional rights to access water for subsistence use” or and the assessment of remaining ones. While the previ- indirect and hard to state with certainty, “Sponsor an ous step focused on the synthesis of possible options, this annual conference on landscape management, encour- step focuses on the analysis of those options. aging government officials, land users, and other stakeholders to meet, exchange views, and learn.” The Users can often benefit from informal consultations with ideal measurable effect would be an improved score on experts, funders, or government officials during this a core indicator, however improvement on a possible step. Sorting requires knowledge and insight into the prac- customized indicator is also desirable. Some actions ticalities of reform that a single user may lack. Discussions would have effects that would be difficult to measure. and feedback from knowledgeable people will improve the quality of the recommendations from the DSS process and • An action like “Give an annual prize for the best may incidentally build outside support or even ownership of actions to improve governance in the land- those recommendations. scape” is creative, but it is unclear what problem it addresses or how to measure its impact except Removal of weak options. Editing should have eliminated in a very general way. actions that were simply impractical. In this step, additional actions can be removed from further consideration or, in • An action like “Influence the political pro- some cases, modified to address their weaknesses. For each cess to make it more sensitive to biodiversity action, the user should consider the questions below. If an concerns” is vague and has hard-to-quantify answer suggests that the action is flawed, the user should effects. A more direct and measurable action drop it from further consideration or modify it. would be to “Revise the management plans for key wildlife habitats in the landscape, using ✤ Does the action duplicate or overlap with another best planning practices.” action in the set? In that case, can the actions be com- bined, or can the activities be more clearly separated After refining the stakeholder suggestions, the user for purposes of analysis? may add additional actions for consideration. It is likely that the stakeholder suggestions will only partially address ✤ Does the action lack sufficient support from the some issues or will overlook relatively low-cost, high-return government? (Does the action fit within the client’s actions. The suggestions may also leave out actions that are reform agenda?) of high value to the decision makers and so ought to be ana- lyzed. The user may add actions to make up for these gaps • Actions need support from several arms of the with discretion. At some point, adding actions can become government. If the action is to be funded through an avenue to impose the user’s values above those of the loans, the finance ministry must support accept- stakeholders. The user must respect the preferences and ing the indebtedness. For policy or legal reforms, concerns that the stakeholders have expressed and not the parliament or justice ministry may be critical. flood the pool with actions that have little backing among Landscape actions crossing traditional sector the people who will be the most affected. There is no firm lines may need the support of multiple ministries 25 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL and agencies. Many actions will require support • Again, the action may build some of these at sub-national as well as national levels. resources, but limits in transportation, communi- cation, availability of staff, and so on could make • Sometimes an international donor can convince an action impractical. the government to accept an action that it does not fully support. For example, a government ✤ If the government or other donors are committing might have little interest in the gender equity funds to the action, are those sources dependable? aspect of an action, which is nonetheless a human rights issue for others. In those cases, it • This might be a concern if a significant portion is a judgment call as to whether there is sufficient of the funding is coming from uncertain govern- support for the action, or whether lack of sup- ment budgets. port will prevent full implementation. ✤ Are there other aspects of the country context that ✤ Does the action face strong opposition from key make the completion of the action questionable? non-governmental stakeholders? • Consider contingencies such as possible This sort of opposition might be enough to sink an changes in government, insurgencies, military action, especially if the action requires cooperation conflicts, weather and climate factors, or eco- from those stakeholders or if those stakeholders nomic downturns. wield strong influence. ✤ Does the action involve a significant risk of environ- ✤ Do the client and community have sufficient human mental or social harm? capacity and a supportive culture to implement the action? • Bank projects must abide by the requirements of the Bank’s Environmental and Social Framework. 6 • The action may require some baseline capacity to carry out. The capacity needs may include ✤ Can the action be completed in a reasonable amount both those directly implementing the action and of time, with delays unlikely? the beneficiaries of the action. As an example, an action that assumes a high literacy level among These questions cannot anticipate all possible reasons why rural residents would be impractical in a commu- an action is unachievable. The user must also apply local nity with low literacy. knowledge and common sense to recognize that some actions are beyond the reach of a conservation or sustain- • Culture may affect actions in many ways. It may able development project. interfere with uptake of new practices or knowl- edge. A capacity-building action that requires Assessment of the remaining actions. The objective of this an extended period of training or apprentice- step is for the user to identify the strengths and weaknesses ship for senior officials may not be feasible. An of the remaining actions. The LGAT comes with a spread- action that relies on adjudication to clear prop- sheet for entering options and tracking scores for this step. erty titles might be impractical in the case of a record of corrupt judicial processes. 6 Note: For more information on the World Bank’s Environmental ✤ Does the client have sufficient infrastructure and and Social Framework, visit: https://www.worldbank.org/en/ physical resources to implement the action? projects-operations/environmental-and-social-framework 26 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL For each of the remaining actions, the user should answer ✤ Will the initiative be susceptible to opposition risks the following questions on a 1 (adverse) to 3 (favorable) or (e.g., activity of powerful stakeholders to thwart red-yellow-green scale, and enter the answers in the deci- action)? sion support spreadsheet. If the answer is unknown, the ✤ Will the initiative be susceptible to macroeconomic user should enter a question mark. risks (e.g., economic downturns or inflation)? Effectiveness in improving governance Step 4: Bundling and ✤ How likely is the action to result in an improvement in governance? Recommending Pathways ✤ How significant is the improvement likely to be? Forward Budget Based on the evaluation above, the user should select ✤ Will the action need a relatively large, moderate, or the best actions and organize them into pathways for small budget? reform. Each pathway can address one of the priority land- scape governance challenges. It is often useful to think of Government support these pathways as components or sub-components of a ✤ Does the action fit well with the government’s reform project or program. Bundling will thus involve the grouping agenda? of similar actions that can achieve the same outcome, for ✤ Has the government made a public commitment to example, strengthened capacity or increased participation the action or to work that includes or fits closely with in value chains. the action? ✤ Do the staff of the lead agency support the action? Step 5: Reporting ✤ Do multiple agencies or levels of government sup- port the action? Reporting is in the form of a policy brief. The final step is the drafting of a concise brief for decision makers pre- Non-governmental support senting pathways to improve governance. The ideal is to ✤ Is there support within the Bank (or other sources of keep the brief to three to four pages. The introduction to funding) for this kind of action? the brief should: ✤ Is there support among stakeholders outside of the government for this action? ✤ State the purpose of the brief, which is to pres- ✤ Is there support from other development partners ent options for improving governance in a specific or funders? landscape. Risks ✤ Outline the boundaries of the landscape, if they are ✤ Will the action be susceptible to political risks (e.g., not explicit in the name. changes of government, corruption, loss of key champions among civil servants or elected officials)? ✤ Explain that the pathways come from a process that ✤ Will the action be susceptible to design risks (e.g., uses indicators to measure the quality of governance, technical problems in implementing the action, and that these indicators are scored with experts and vulnerability to natural disasters such as wildfire or vetted with stakeholders. floods, or difficulties because the action is compli- cated and has many parts)? ✤ Explain that the stakeholders also express opinions ✤ Will the initiative be susceptible to capacity risks (e.g., on which areas of governance should be priorities failure to find enough capable staff, failure of project for improvement, and what kinds of actions might management, or lack of needed tools or infrastructure)? be useful. 27 ✤ Explain that this brief presents those and other The brief should begin with the highest priority challenges, options. Annexes to the brief can present the indi- as identified by the stakeholders. It should present the iden- cators and their scores and the raw list of actions tified options for addressing each challenge, highlighting suggested by the stakeholders. If it seems useful, an options likely to have strong results (high-benefit and low- annex could include the sorting spreadsheet. risk) and options likely to produce good results at low cost. 28 Monitoring and Evaluation Use A landscape governance assessment using this tool can become the foundation of routine monitoring and evaluation (M&E). The following section is aligned with the World Bank’s guidance on results frameworks and uses its terminology. However, this can still be applied to projects or programs run by governments, development partners, or other entities. 29 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL M&E requires the development of a set of indicators, mea- In general, there should at least be one indicator in the suring a baseline score for each indicator, setting a target, results framework that measures progress toward each gov- and periodically re-scoring the indicators to measure out- ernance outcome in the objective statement. comes. Outcomes can come out of specified, pre-financed activities (Investment Project Financing or IPF) or as part For each customized indicator, the user must measure its of a results-based financing model (Program for Results or baseline score, set a target score, and make good M&E PforR) where activities are not specified and achievement of arrangements, including for scoring, communication, and targets triggers disbursement. In the case of general bud- dissemination. If a baseline cannot be established or targets get support (Development Policy Lending or DFL), a policy are unclear, the user should create an alternative indica- matrix will include indicators similar to those in the results tor. Similarly, if the cost of data collection is too high, for framework of IPF and PforR operations. Prior actions and instance requiring a complex survey, alternative indicators triggers that determine the reform path in the DPL are not may be more appropriate. indicators per se and are not included in this guide. The core indicators are all designed to be scored on a scale For M&E, users can employ three types of governance of one to five. Customized indicators do not need to be so measurements: core indicators, customized indicators, limited. They can be scored on a similar scale or can use and governance indexes. other forms of measurement. Here are some examples: Core Indicators are one or more of the 30 core indicators ✤ Joint field missions by staff of the Department of used in the assessment tool that score the 10 landscape Agricultural Development and the Department governance challenges. Core indicators are pre-selected of Forestry (number). Outcome: improved inter- with fixed definitions. The benefit of using core indicators is agency coordination. that the methodology for their collection has been predeter- mined and that the baseline is established at the time of the ✤ Sectoral plans for the landscape that are aligned with assessment. On the other hand, a given core indicator may the overall landscape planning process (number). not be specific enough. Outcome: strengthened landscape planning. Customized Indicators are stand-alone indicators that ✤ Staff in government agencies that are skilled in ben- are selected to measure a specific outcome, reflect a cer- efit sharing planning and implementation (number). tain context, or type of action. Customized indicators are Outcome: improved benefit sharing. defined by the user. Governance Indexes are compound measures composed Customized indicators, or any newly created indicator, of several customized sub-indicators. Indexes are used when should meet all the MSP criteria: several dimensions need to be captured in one measure. ✤ Measurable: The indicator captures changes that The sub-indicators that make up the index are typically are due to project or program actions that can be simpler than the stand-alone customized indicators. Each observed and measured. The cost of measurement sub-indicator is scored for being achieved (score of 1) or must not be prohibitively high. not achieved (score of 0). The target for the index is the total score (if five sub-indicators are included, the target ✤ Specific: The indicator wording is concrete, detailed, is five). focused, and well-defined. Indices could also be used for the measure of sequential ✤ Plausible: The indicator captures changes that are achievements (for instance, the stepwise implementation of achievable within the Theory of Change, resources a system or a process, where the index would be the num- available, and duration of the project or program. ber of milestones achieved). 30 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL Examples: An index on implementation of a landscape information sys- tem with the desired outcome being improved accessibility An index on stakeholder engagement with the desired out- of information (target = 5). Sub-indicators: come being improved stakeholder engagement in planning and decision-making (target = 5). Sub-indicators: 1. Demand survey designed and implemented 1. Mapping of stakeholders completed 2. Modules on data collection and analysis designed and operationalized 2. Consultation on engagement of all stakeholders completed 3. Other modules designed, including a data quality assur- 3. Engagement Forum established ance mechanism 4. First meeting held in Stakeholder Engagement Forum 4. Relevant authorities share data on a regular basis 5. Second meeting of Stakeholder Engagement 5. Public interface operational. Box 7: Checklist to Assure Indicator Set Quality ✤ Do the indicators to be achieved reflect all aspects of the objective, i.e., is there at least one indicator for each outcome expressed? ✤ Do the indicators align with the MSP criteria? ✤ Do all indicators have a clear definition? ✤ Does every indicator have clear data source(s)? ✤ Are the targets calculated? ✤ Are targets realistic and achievable? ✤ Is the number of indicators manageable? ✤ Do all indicators have the right unit of measurement? 31 32 Annex I: Challenges and Core Indicators This Annex presents explanations of the 10 landscape governance challenges and guidance for scoring the 30 LGAT indicators. 33 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL In the table below, each indicator is presented as a question Scoring where multiple agencies are active: What if several with five possible scores. To score the indicators consistently agencies are active in the landscape and they have different from application to application, users should pay attention qualities of governance? Where an indicator covers the to how the scores are described. Each indicator also comes behavior of several agencies, give more weight to the behav- with notes on scoring. Again, be sure to consult these notes ior of agencies that have a greater impact on the landscape. to assure consistent application of the LGAT. To illustrate the For example, if the indicator scores transparency and the coverage of the indicator, each also comes with examples forestry agency by itself would score a 4 while the less-active of some generic actions that a project might undertake to transportation agency would score a 1, the aggregate score improve governance measured by the indicator. should probably be a 3. If the situation were reversed with the forest agency scoring 1 and the transportation agency a General interpretation of indicators: When an indicator 4, the aggregate score would be a 2, at best. refers to “agencies active in the landscape” or “agencies affecting the landscape,” consider a broad list. Scoring when evidence is conflicting: Evidence on the quality of governance may conflict. One report may say that This might include agencies that manage resources directly stakeholders are well organized and represented, while (forestry, agriculture, energy, mines, water, parks, and eco- another report may say that group X is poorly represented. tourism), agencies whose work impacts land use (transport, How to square these reports and arrive at a score? One communication, urban development), agencies that pro- option is to assume both sources are true and try to under- vide important support to resource users (land registries, stand and score the situation that way. In the example given, police, extension services), agencies that regulate resource the scorer would conclude that most but not all stakehold- users (environment, wildlife, labor, public health, revenue ers are well organized, scoring it a 4. A second option is to collection), and agencies that affect the landscape by their arrive at some sort of average of the two reports. The best effect on the stream of commerce (industrial development, option is to resolve the differences by drawing upon addi- customs, phyto-sanitation). tional reliable evidence. Table A1: The 10 Challenges and Guidance for Scoring the 30 LGAT Indicators CHALLENGE 1: AGENCY COORDINATION Key to landscape governance is the contribution of different offices and agencies towards common goals. Coordination is difficult. Challenges stem from general features and incentive structures: ✤ Each agency or office seeks to guard its autonomy and independence ✤ Organizational routines and procedures are difficult to synchronize and coordinate ✤ Organizational goals, capacities, and cultures differ ✤ Constituents bring different expectations and pressure to bear 34 CHALLENGE 1: AGENCY COORDINATION Coordination problems can arise in several ways. A common issue is coordination between two agencies that deal with completely different sectors, such as a forest agency and a mining agency. Coordination can also be an issue within a single agency, as when two regional offices of a forest agency have authority over two adjoining parts of a protected area but fail to arrive at a unified plan for the area’s management. Coordination can be an issue between levels of government, as when a municipality is interested in a watershed being managed to produce drinking water while the national government is interested in developing the land for agriculture or tourism. Coordination can also be an issue across national boundaries. This challenge, unlike all the others, has only one indicator, which probes overall coordination. Customized indicators can probe specific coordination problems. Indicator 1: Agency Coordination How well do agencies affecting the landscape coordinate their work? 1. Agencies show a lack of communication and signs of regular opposition and interference. 2. Agencies show limited communication and frequent signs of opposition and interference 3. Agencies show regular but ineffective communication, and occasional signs of opposition and interference 4. Agencies show regular and mostly effective communication and signs of agreement with little opposition and interference 5. Agencies show regular and fully effective communication and exhibit no signs of opposition or interference NOTES Coordination can be difficult to gauge. This indicator suggests looking at two proxies. Lack of communication between actors is a contributor to lack of coordination. Resulting interference or opposition is an outcome of lack of coordination. Assessors can judge the strength of communication by: ✤ Talking to informants at the agencies about their contacts with others ✤ Looking for formal channels of communication (newsletters, regular meetings between staffs) ✤ Looking for written coordination agreements ✤ Looking for offices or individuals tasked with being contact points between offices or agencies Assessors can gather evidence of interference or opposition from informants or from press reports of high-profile cases. If a specific coordination problem is of concern, a customized indicator can focus on that problem. 35 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL CHALLENGE 1: AGENCY COORDINATION ACTIONS ✤ Create a committee to make recommendations for coordinating high-level policies on landscape planning and management ✤ Support a study of existing legislation and the possible need for (1) a landscape management framework law that clarifies mechanisms and provides mechanisms for coordination among agencies in a landscape, and (2) a revision of agency mandates (example, adding environmental protection to the mission of the mining agency) ✤ Establish a high-level inter- agency coordinating working group or platform, or create a mechanism to resolve con- flicts among agencies quickly and fairly ✤ Train staff to have a “landscape” outlook on their work so that they are more inclined to look beyond their own mandates and areas of expertise ✤ Train staff on effective coordination, in workshops mixing staff from different offices ✤ Help offices arrive at written agreements on coordination ✤ Promote networking and communication among technical staff, for example, by establishing a technical working group with members from different offices to coordinate actions ✤ Encourage deputation and secondees—exchange of staff—between offices ✤ Hire liaison officers whose jobs would be to improve communication and coordination ✤ Create a newsletter or blog, with frequent updates, to keep people posted on activities affecting the landscape ✤ Consider realigning geographic or sectoral assignments to avoid unnecessary fragmentation of authority CHALLENGE 2: POLICY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORKS7 This challenge examines three areas. The first relates to the use of transparent approaches to create policies and laws for landscape management, which overlaps with Challenge 3, on public participation. The second relates to whether policy and legal frameworks for landscape management are workable and comprehensive, touching on the quality of policies and laws. Quality includes relevance, goals, completeness, consistency, stability, and lack of overreach.8 The third area relates to whether policies and laws for landscape management are merely aspirational or whether they actually influence behavior. Do people understand what is in the policies and laws? Do agencies attempt to implement them? This dimen- sion is discussed under Challenges 6 on government administration (are administrative laws implemented) and Challenge 8 on rule of law. In sum, desirable policy and legal frameworks for landscape management need: 7 Note: Policy and law are closely related. Public policy guides the actions of the government, which in turn influence the actions of actors outside the government. Laws apply to everyone. They may also carry penalties for violation. Ideally, governments develop policy first, and parliaments then write laws that reflect the accepted policies. In practice, this pattern is not set. Laws may get enacted before overarching policies are clearly adopted. Policies may change while laws lag behind. Laws may change and drive revisions in policies. 8 Note: Laws or policies “overreach” when they are beyond the capacity of the government to implement, when they are broader than necessary to achieve goals, or when they are socially unacceptable (Lindsay et al. 2002). 36 CHALLENGE 2: POLICY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORKS ✤ Transparent approaches to creating, reviewing, and revising policies and laws ✤ Workable and comprehensive policies and laws (e.g., avoiding complexity and overreach, being consistent inter- nally and with traditional practices, having good transparency provisions, having good grievance mechanisms, and whistleblower protections) ✤ A commitment to implementation within the government, going beyond aspiration to actual implementation Indicator 2: Transparent Approaches When the government adopts new policies and laws affecting landscape management, is the process transparent? 1. All policy and law-making processes lack transparency 2. Some policy and law-making processes are transparent 3. Many but not most policy and law-making processes are transparent 4. Most policy and law-making processes are transparent 5. All policy and law-making processes are fully transparent NOTES A transparent approach should include: ✤ Public notice that the process is about to start ✤ Public sharing of formal drafts of the policies or laws before they are officially adopted ✤ Adequate opportunity for stakeholders to provide inputs ✤ Publication and dissemination of all materials in local languages ✤ Opportunity for stakeholders to propose review and revision, to be done using transparent, participatory processes The scoring should look at practices currently in use, not at practices used in times past to adopt laws that are still in effect. ACTIONS Help agencies develop public outreach that goes beyond publishing notices in the national gazette: ✤ Develop and publicize clear protocols to assure transparency in policy and law reviews, including protocols for soliciting, receiving, and responding to public comments on policy and law revisions ✤ Create a public library of existing policies and laws (could be digital, or accessible in agency branch offices) ✤ Set up a contact list of stakeholders who have expressed interest in policy or law revisions ✤ Improve agencies’ press relations and educate the media about policy- and law-making activities 37 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL CHALLENGE 2: POLICY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORKS Indicator 3: Workable Policies and Laws Do policies or laws have gaps or weaknesses inconsistent with good landscape management? 1. There are many major gaps or weaknesses in the following areas: equity, process, standards, enforcement, and insti- tutional consistency 2. There are some major gaps or weaknesses in these areas 3. There are many minor gaps in these areas 4. There are some minor gaps 5. There are no gaps or weaknesses in any of these areas NOTES Key policies and laws include those dealing with land tenure (including harmonization of traditional and formal rights and institutions); resource management, use, and conservation; resource-related crime; environmental and social impact assessments (ESIA); access to public information; implementation of CITES and other resource-related treaties; protection of whistleblowers; and avenues to seek review of agency actions. Here are examples of gaps or weaknesses in specific areas: ✤ Equity - Failure to treat Indigenous, rural, or minority groups fairly; lack of gender equity ✤ Process - Lack of whistle protections, lack of transparency provisions, lack of public participation provisions, no ESIA requirements; no avenues for stakeholders to seek review of agency actions. ✤ Standards - Failure to implement key treaties such as CITES; failure to adopt well-recognized international stan- dards; failure to adopt an overall goal of sustainability ✤ Enforcement - Outdated penalties and fines; no commitment to controlling environmental crimes ✤ Institutional consistency - Grants of conflicting powers to different agencies; policies steering agencies in different directions If there is a topic absent from this list but important in the local context, weigh it in scoring. ACTIONS Sponsor or cooperate with a study of existing policies and agency mandates looking for conflicts in the direction of resource management. Support or cooperate in revision of key policies and laws: ✤ Land tenure, including recognition and harmonization of traditional (informal) and formal land rights 38 CHALLENGE 2: POLICY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORKS ACTIONS (continued ✤ Resource management ✤ Criminal codes ✤ ESIA requirements ✤ Transparency laws ✤ Laws implementing key treaties ✤ Whistleblower protections ✤ Conflict resolution laws ✤ Laws allowing stakeholders to seek review of agency actions Indicator 4: Commitment to Implementation Do agencies in the landscape implement the responsibilities assigned to them under policies and laws? 1. Throughout the landscape, agencies show no commitment to implementing the responsibilities assigned to them under policies and laws 2. Agencies show commitment to implementing some of the responsibilities assigned to them under policies and laws 3. Agencies show commitment to implementing many but not most of the responsibilities assigned to them under policies and laws 4. Agencies show commitment to implementing most of the responsibilities assigned to them under policies and laws 5. Agencies show commitment to implementing all the responsibilities assigned to them under policies and laws NOTES Agencies sometimes take policies and laws to be aspirational—to be implemented at some future time, if at all. Signs of low commitment would include: ✤ Duties assigned to agencies that are routinely ignored, such as a duty to conduct monitoring and evaluation, or a duty to collect and publish statistics ✤ Posts that are created by law but never filled ✤ Committees or bodies called for in law that are never formed ✤ Schedules of fees that are never applied, perhaps because they have not been updated to reflect inflation ✤ Lack of up-to-date copies of policies and law in agency offices 39 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL CHALLENGE 2: POLICY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORKS NOTES (continued) Signs of strong commitment include: ✤ Ongoing training of staff on policies, laws, and agency duties under the law ✤ Compliance with law being a factor in employee performance reviews and promotions ✤ Budgets that reflect the needs that the agencies have, to fulfill responsibilities under law ✤ No apparent gaps in implementation, as listed in the “low commitment” paragraph above The score of this indicator should be based on actions or lack of actions like the ones listed above, rather than on a subjec- tive sense of the agency or government’s commitment to implementation ACTIONS ✤ Develop lists of unfulfilled obligations under policies and laws ✤ Conduct training on obligations under existing policies and laws ✤ Advise on revision of budgets to reflect legal obligations ✤ Strengthen the performance review process to reward compliance with law ✤ Revise out-of-date and unimplementable provisions in policies and laws (example, add inflation indexing to fee schedules) ✤ Improve recruitment processes for vacant posts CHALLENGE 3: MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION Public participation, in one form or another, must inform the government’s decisions on policy, law, planning, and man- agement. Opportunity to participate in decisions that affect lives and livelihoods is a human right. Participation of a wide variety of stakeholders representing multiple sectors and interests can increase the quality of decision making and build support for implementation. Participation can occur across a spectrum. At one end, just short of actual participation, the government could merely inform stakeholders of what is happening. At the other end is delegation, where the government grants the affected stake- holders full authority to make decisions. In between, the government might offer stakeholders opportunities to comment or set up some form of joint decision-making. Serious participation requires that the stakeholders have some influence on the ultimate decision. 40 CHALLENGE 3: MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION One way that might give local people more opportunity to participate is to devolve authority to local government. In the- ory, local government should be more responsive to local interests. However, local governments might lack capacity or be open to elite capture. In practice it may be difficult to find the best degree of devolution. Strong public participation requires: ✤ Opportunities for stakeholders to engage (processes, platforms, advisory bodies, and so forth) ✤ Active stakeholders (informed, motivated, well-represented) ✤ Government responsiveness to consultation inputs (using stakeholder input to shape decisions, or sharing power with stakeholders) Indicator 5: Opportunities Do stakeholders outside government have adequate opportunities to participate in landscape -related decisions? 1. Stakeholders have almost no opportunity 2. Stakeholders have infrequent opportunities 3. In effect, stakeholders have occasional opportunities, depending on the agency and the nature of the issue 4. Stakeholders usually have opportunities, for almost all agencies and issues 5. Stakeholders always have ample opportunity NOTES Agencies at all levels should be inviting stakeholder inputs. The variables here that merit consideration include: ✤ How many agencies active in the landscape seek public input ✤ Do they seek comment on all sorts of decisions, minor and major ✤ Do they give real notice of opportunity to comment ✤ Do they have practical venues for participation ✤ Do they ensure equal opportunities for all groups, including minorities, women, and so forth ✤ Do they give clear instructions for providing input ✤ Do they give sufficient time to comment ✤ Do they provide sufficient information as bases for informed comments If Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) applies in the landscape, consider whether it is well-implemented. The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights website provides guidance on good implementation of FPIC 41 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL CHALLENGE 3: MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION ACTIONS ✤ Provide agencies with training and support for soliciting public comments, including: • Training in meeting facilitation • Training in listening skills ✤ Encourage agencies to create an office or bureau to support public input and participatory decision-making ✤ Amend statutes or rules to increase opportunities to involve stakeholders ✤ Create a standing stakeholder advisory committee that agencies can consult to receive comments Indicator 6: Active Stakeholders Do important stakeholder groups outside the government seek to effectively participate in landscape management and planning? 1. No stakeholder groups take advantage of opportunities for participation 2. Only some of the important stakeholder groups take advantage 3. Many (but not most) of the important stakeholder groups take advantage 4. Most of the important stakeholders take advantage 5. All or nearly all important stakeholder groups take advantage NOTES The reasons for low participation include reluctance to engage with the government (e.g., people involved in informal or illegal activities tend to avoid contact), skepticism that participation will influence outcomes, fatigue from participating in multiple processes, fear of punishment for offending officials through criticism, etc. Low capacity can also limit participation. Factors here include: ✤ Knowledge of how to participate ✤ Knowledge of the subject at issue ✤ Organization of the stakeholder group ✤ Degree of preparation for the participatory process Not every stakeholder must be an expert in the issues, but they must be able to send trustworthy and capable represen- tatives to the table. 42 CHALLENGE 3: MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION ACTIONS Helping stakeholders to effectively participate could entail: ✤ Assuring stakeholders of their safety in participating ✤ Coordinating participation opportunities to limit scheduling conflicts and fatigue ✤ Bringing in a motivated partner, such as an NGO, to represent the stakeholder ✤ Training (including study tours) ✤ Providing communications equipment ✤ Supporting travel to meetings Indicator 7: Government Responsiveness How often are government decisions related to landscapes modified or influenced by inputs from multiple stakeholders? 1. Government decisions are never modified or influenced by stakeholder input 2. In some minor instances, government decisions have been modified or influenced by stakeholder input 3. In some notable cases, government decisions have been modified or influenced by stakeholder input 4. More often than not, government decisions are modified or influenced by stakeholder input 5. Routinely, government decisions are modified or influenced by stakeholder input NOTES Scoring should evaluate how well the government responds to the full range of stakeholders. If the government is consis- tently responsive to one group over another, that should not get a good score. For evidence, look for changes between draft or proposed plans and final actions made in response to stakeholder input. These decisions could be part of formal planning, rulemaking, design of concession contracts, or less formal decision making. ACTIONS ✤ Build capacity of the civil service, especially in service-oriented agencies, on how to analyze and act on stake- holder input ✤ Encourage agencies to adopt clear internal guidance that directs staff to produce summaries of stakeholder input and actions influenced by that input. 43 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL CHALLENGE 4: TENURE SECURITY Tenure refers to rights to land and other natural resources. People are less likely to invest labor, time, or funds in managing resources if tenure is insecure. People may own land and all its resources outright, but this is rare. More often, people hold limited rights (“a bundle of rights”), for example, the right to use and exclude others from the surface of the land while not owning the mineral rights or not being able to exclude others who hold use rights. Modern states have addressed tenure issues by trying to formalize and record rights. This can be a positive step, but in practice it can extinguish traditional tenures and enrich elites. The challenge is to move towards formalized rights that recognize traditional notions of tenure and give legal status to the claims of rural people. Disputes over tenure are common and create the kind of uncertainties that discourage long term investment and sustain- able use. Resolving these conflicts can foster sustainable landscape management. Tenure security requires: ✤ Clear and well-defined rights (including having good records and titling processes) ✤ Harmonization of rights (formal systems should reflect customary rights) ✤ Workable means of settling tenure conflicts Indicator 8: Clear and Well-Defined Rights Are all types of tenure rights clear? 1. For all types of tenure rights, the rights are unclear 2. Some basic tenure rights are clear 3. Many tenure rights are clear, but there are significant gaps 4. Most tenure rights are clear, with no significant gaps 5. All types of tenure rights are clear NOTES By “all types of tenure rights” this indicator means both rights to land and rights to access other natural resources such as water or pasture. For rights to be clear, there must be some well-accepted way to determine who holds rights. 44 CHALLENGE 4: TENURE SECURITY NOTES (continued) ✤ In a modern system, this typically requires formal recordkeeping ✤ Within a community observing a customary system, the records may be unwritten, held in the memories of respected leaders or elders, but acknowledged by the whole community Formal and informal recordkeeping systems can be present but less than perfect. For example: ✤ They may be incomplete, not covering the full geographic area ✤ They may omit the rights of particular groups of people They may include errors ✤ They may not document all types of rights, leaving out carbon or groundwater, for example, or covering occu- pancy but not use rights, or covering formal but not traditional rights This indicator does not directly measure conflicts, but common and persistent conflicts over tenure could be a sign that rights are unclear. ACTIONS ✤ Review underlying land and natural resource tenure laws ✤ Revise laws as needed, including to assure compensation when the government extinguishes rights ✤ Create or revise powers and duties of a land tenure agency, tasked with maintaining records and clarifying owner- ship of rights ✤ Invest in cadastral surveys and recordkeeping ✤ Train surveyors and recordkeepers Indicator 9: Harmonization of Rights Where people have customary or traditional rights, are those rights recognized under law? 1. No traditional rights have recognition under law 2. Some traditional rights have recognition under law 3. Many but not most traditional rights have recognition under law 4. Most traditional rights have recognition under law 5. All traditional rights have recognition under law NOTES Customary or traditional rights are not always documented, so this indicator may be difficult to evaluate. It will require some expert knowledge of the expectations and practices of people in the landscape. 45 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL CHALLENGE 4: TENURE SECURITY NOTES (continued) It would be enough that the law recognizes that the community holds these rights without formally recognizing how the rights are divided within the community. Where people have been displaced from longstanding access to resources, this suggests that traditional rights are not being recognized in law. ACTIONS ✤ Support revision of law to recognize traditional rights ✤ Support processes to document and record traditional rights, such as participatory mapping ✤ Support implementation of FPIC, where appropriate ✤ Support making identification and assessment of traditional uses part of the ESIA process, for example, as part of landscape planning Indicator 10: Settling Conflicts Do practical tenure conflict resolution mechanisms exist? 1. No practical resolution mechanisms exist for tenure conflicts 2. Practical resolution mechanisms exist for some tenure conflicts 3. Practical resolution mechanisms exist for many but not most tenure conflicts 4. Practical resolution mechanisms exist for most tenure conflicts 5. Practical mechanisms exist for all tenure conflicts NOTES Conflicts involve situations where both sides believe that they have a right, but the rights are incompatible. If one side knows it is acting without right (for example, poaching or stealing logs), that is a matter for law enforcement, Challenge 8. A practical mechanism should be: ✤ Affordable ✤ Accessible ✤ Fair ✤ Reasonably quick There will be many kinds of tenure conflicts. They may vary by party, for example: 46 CHALLENGE 4: TENURE SECURITY NOTES (continued) ✤ Conflicts between individuals within a community ✤ Conflicts between communities ✤ Conflicts between communities and outsiders ✤ Conflicts between communities and government They may vary by subject matter, for example: ✤ Conflicts over boundaries ✤ Conflicts over ownership of use rights ✤ Conflicts over interference with enjoyment of rights ✤ Conflicts over access and rights of way There may be several types of conflict resolution mechanisms. Some may be informal and voluntary, particularly in the case of Indigenous peoples and local communities. Some may be formal (e.g., involving the courts). If tenure conflicts tend to persist, that is evidence that practical resolution mechanisms do not exist. ACTIONS ✤ Set up new grievance and redress mechanisms to speed resolution of the conflicts (e.g., mobile courts, mediation venues) ✤ Train local officials in informal means of conflict resolution ✤ “Level the playing field” by making expert advice available on how to use existing conflict mechanisms (e.g., pro- vide people who cannot afford to pay for counsel with free legal advice) ✤ If existing conflict resolution mechanisms are overwhelmed with cases, support conflict prevention measures such as surveys and on-the-ground demarcation of boundaries CHALLENGE 5: LANDSCAPE PLANNING Planning can be a powerful tool to integrate and harmonize the management of landscapes. In the ideal situation, planners share a vision, plan for the entire landscape, coordinate their efforts, and consider cross-sectoral impacts. However, in reality, planners may lack common goals, ignore landscape boundaries, work in isolation, and focus nar- rowly on one sector. 47 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL CHALLENGE 5: LANDSCAPE PLANNING Good landscape planning processes should: ✤ Use a landscape focus (with coordination among planners, shared goals, boundaries that encompass the entire landscape, and cross-sectoral scope) ✤ Use good processes, for example, starting with high-quality data, having competent staff, doing ESIA, producing an implementable output, and making periodic revisions Indicator 11: Landscape Focus Where agencies produce separate plans affecting the landscape, are the plans coordinated? 1. No, agency plans are not coordinated 2. Only some aspects of plans are coordinated 3. Many aspects of plans are coordinated but there is considerable room for improvement 4. Plans are mostly coordinated, but there is still some room for improvement 5. Plans are fully coordinated, with no obvious improvements needed NOTES The plans at issue here are any government-made or -mandated plans that affect resource use. Examples include manage- ment plans from a forest or park agency, development plans from a highway or energy agency, or general zoning plans from a land use authority. Typically, rather than a single plan for the landscape, agencies will produce multiple, sector-specific plans. These plans may have different boundaries that do not perfectly align with the landscape. The questions are: ✤ Do the plans conflict ✤ How are trade-offs negotiated ✤ Taken together, do these plans add up to a coordinated approach for managing the landscape Agencies should be considering impacts that fall outside of their sector. For example, road agencies should consider how improved access to forests would open the area to illegal use. Mining agencies should consider how mine development would bring in workers and increase demand for water, fuelwood, and other resources. Forest agencies should consider how creation of a reserve for wildlife would increase wildlife damage to neighboring farms. Agricultural agencies should consider how runoff from more intensive fertilizer and pesticide use would affect drinking water quality. Look at existing plans to see if they identify cross-sectoral concerns and include actions to mitigate impacts. 48 CHALLENGE 5: LANDSCAPE PLANNING ACTIONS ✤ Review existing plans to identify those lacking a landscape focus ✤ Support revision of plans, with full coordination among agencies and strong stakeholder participation, including local stakeholders ✤ Train planners in landscape-scale planning approaches Indicator 12: Process Does planning in the landscape use high-quality data? 1. Planning is never done using high-quality data 2. Only some data used in planning is of high-quality 3. Much but not most data used in planning is of high-quality 4. Most data used in planning is of high-quality 5. All data used in planning is of high-quality NOTES To be of high quality, data should be accurate, relevant, current, verifiable, complete, and sufficiently granular. If there are several plans relevant to resource use in the landscape, consider them as a whole. For completeness, consider whether planners have accessed all the different types of relevant data. These might include demographic data, economic data, geophysical data, and so forth. They should also include traditional and local knowledge. ACTIONS ✤ Support collection of high-quality data • Identify data gaps • Establish protocols for data collection, including for collection of M&R data • Support the collection of data ✤ Train planners to use high-quality data 49 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL CHALLENGE 5: LANDSCAPE PLANNING Indicator 13: Process Does planning in the landscape consider improvement of livelihoods as a central challenge? 1. No, planning in the landscape does not consider improvement of livelihoods 2. Only some planning considers improvement of livelihoods 3. Much but not most planning considers improvement of livelihoods 4. Most planning considers improvement of livelihoods 5. All planning considers improvement of livelihoods NOTES A good indication of improvement of livelihoods is reduction in the number of households below the poverty level. Signs of consideration of livelihood improvement include: ✤ Whether plans set targets for reducing poverty, including targets differentiated by gender ✤ Whether plans identify actions to generate employment and raise the income level of poor households ✤ Whether plans call for monitoring of household incomes ACTIONS ✤ Train planners to think in terms of livelihood improvement ✤ Educate planners about the particular livelihood issues faced by households headed by women ✤ Encourage participation of poor households in planning ✤ Identify practical approaches to improve the livelihoods of the poor in the landscape ✤ Encourage planners to include training for alternative livelihoods in their plans Indicator 14: Process Does planning for major investments and activities in the landscape include environmental and social impact analyses (ESIA)? 1. No planning includes these analyses 2. Planning for some major investments and activities includes high-quality analyses 3. Planning for many but not most major investments and activities includes high-quality analyses 4. Planning for most major investments and activities includes high-quality analyses 5. Planning for all major investments and activities includes high-quality analyses 50 CHALLENGE 5: LANDSCAPE PLANNING NOTES An investment or activity is major, for example, if any of these hold true: ✤ There is significant public controversy over it ✤ It affects a protected area or a threatened species ✤ It is expected to have irreversible effects on the landscape’s resources ✤ It is expected to affect the livelihoods of many people in the landscape ✤ It is expected to cause social disruption through displacement of people or in-migration An ESIA is of high quality if it: ✤ Follows international best practices in its scope and preparation ✤ Uses best available data ✤ Analyzes plausible alternatives to the actions, including a “no actions” alternative ✤ Identifies and engages potentially affected stakeholders in setting its scope and reviewing its findings ✤ Includes practical steps for mitigating any negative environmental or social effects of the activity If planning includes environmental analysis but has no or poor-quality social analysis, do not count it as meeting the standard of this indicator. ACTIONS ✤ Train planners in ESIA techniques ✤ Help draft standards for ESIA process ✤ Provide resources (funding, data, outside expertise) to produce ESIAs Indicator 15: Process Do plans try to address the drivers of unsustainable resource use? 1. Plans fail to identify unsustainable resource use, key drivers of those uses, or steps to address those drivers 2. Plans address some key drivers of unsustainable resource use 3. Plans address many but not most key drivers of unsustainable resource use 4. Plans address most key drivers of unsustainable resource use 5. Plans address all key drivers of unsustainable resource use 51 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL CHALLENGE 5: LANDSCAPE PLANNING NOTES Consider how plans address existing drivers and how they may create new drivers, for example, by opening the land to access by illegal users. Where there are multiple plans, some will probably address the drivers better than others. In scoring, consider the overall impact on drivers. The drivers to consider may include: ✤ Accelerating demands for potentially renewable resources, such as timber, fuelwood, or bushmeat, that lead to unsustainable harvest practices ✤ Demands for agricultural products that lead to clearing of natural land cover ✤ Changing climate, which makes previously sustainable practices unsustainable Accelerating demand may be linked, for example, to population growth or migration; new technology that makes resources valuable in new ways; or expanding markets linking local landscapes to regional, national, or international economic forces. Plans may not be able to reduce the drivers directly (i.e., address the root causes of pressure on the landscape), but must consider adaptive measures that respond to the threats. In scoring, look at both overall plans for the landscape and individual agency plans. ACTIONS ✤ Train planners to understand and identify the drivers of unsustainable use ✤ Train planners in how to address identified drivers (e.g., through policy changes, market actions, regulatory approaches, technology-based solutions) ✤ Support revision of plans so that they address key drivers CHALLENGE 6: GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION In a modern state, the government is usually the pivotal governance actor. The quality of government administration strongly influences the quality of governance. Good administration requires: ✤ Resources (financial, human, equipment, and infrastructure) 52 CHALLENGE 6: GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION ✤ Accountability and transparency (auditing, monitoring and evaluation, and control of corruption, including politi- cal interference in technical decisions) ✤ Effective management and implementation (efficient organizational structures, strong management skills, including supervision, direction, and evaluation of employees, clear goals and objectives, commitment to fully implement relevant policies, laws, plans, and programs) Indicator 16: Resources How adequately funded are government programs managing resources in the landscape? 1. No programs are fully funded 2. Some programs are fully funded 3. Many but not most programs are fully funded 4. Most programs are fully funded 5. All programs are fully funded NOTES Look at all sources of funding, domestic (e.g., dedicated trust funds, internally generated revenues, appropriated funds from national budgets) as well as donor and development partner support. Look at the programs directed at resources — forests, water, minerals, energy, agricultural lands, and so forth. A fully funded program has enough money to implement plans, retain staff, maintain equipment and infrastructure, and achieve agreed targets. Consider the funding for the present fiscal or budget year. Consider also the availability of funds — whether funds are released in a timely manner and whether agencies can rely on all announced funds being actually made available to them rather than being withdrawn arbitrarily. Consider direct agency management of resources as well as agency regulation of other actors’ use of resources. ACTIONS ✤ Identify the shortfalls and the stakeholders and targets affected ✤ Identify the reasons that funding is inadequate ✤ Approach potential sources of funding and educate them about the issues ✤ Train agency personnel how to develop and advocate for better budgets ✤ Seek means of improving efficiency, achieving targets with less funding 53 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL CHALLENGE 6: GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION Indicator 17: Accountability For government programs managing natural resources in the landscape, are regular perfor- mance assessments undertaken? 1. No performance assessments are undertaken 2. For some programs, performance assessments are regularly undertaken 3. For many but not most programs, performance assessments are regularly undertaken 4. For most programs, performance assessments are regularly undertaken 5. For all programs, performance assessments are regularly undertaken NOTES Performance assessments look broadly at how well an agency achieves its targets and satisfies its intended beneficiaries. Monitoring, covered in the next indicator, is more fine-grained. A performance assessment of a livelihoods program might look at whether it achieved its target of raising X number of households out of poverty and the overall cost per household of the effort. Monitoring of the program might measure the exact number of households engaged, the effort placed into training people for each kind of income-generating activity, the gender equity of the effort, the permanence of changes in livelihoods and income, and so forth. Performance assessments might be conducted once every year, perhaps using monitoring data. Monitoring efforts are continuous. For performance assessments to count, the assessors need to be independent, though they can be internal or external. The methods and results of the assessments must be open to public inputs and scrutiny. When scoring this indicator, make a note of what percentage of programs have regular performance assessments. This will be helpful in scoring trends when a repeat assessment is done. Performance assessments should include public expenditure reviews. ACTIONS ✤ Train assessors ✤ Encourage the government to establish independent assessment offices ✤ Educate the press on reporting on performance assessments and using performance assessment data ✤ Support reform of performance assessment laws to enhance transparency and frequency of performance assessments ✤ Support general transparency reforms to enable outside groups to review agency performance 54 CHALLENGE 6: GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION Indicator 18: Accountability Do government programs affecting landscape management include regular monitoring? 1. Monitoring is not done 2. Some programs regularly undertake monitoring 3. Many but not most programs regularly undertake monitoring 4. Most programs regularly undertake monitoring 5. All programs regularly undertake monitoring NOTES This indicator applies to a larger set of programs than the previous indicator. For example, a program to collect royalties from resource use would not be a management activity under the previous indicator but would be an activity affecting management under this indicator. The construction of a road by a transport agency would be included here but not in the previous indicator. Monitoring should collect enough data so that assessors can look at: ✤ Achievement of outcomes (what are the targets and how well are they achieved?) ✤ Compliance with the laws that govern the agency (including implementation of key treaties) ✤ Whether a program follows its plans ✤ Whether a program implements safeguards and mitigating actions identified in ESIA ACTIONS ✤ Train a cadre of M&E professionals ✤ Create a culture: get a public commitment from senior management to support M&E and act on the findings ✤ Promote transparency by encouraging agencies to routinely publish M&E findings ✤ Ensure that the agency sets SMART targets (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound), allowing M&E to make useful assessments ✤ If the legislature can play an active oversight role, train parliamentarians to understand and oversee resource management ✤ If auditors, inspectors general, or ombuds play active oversight roles, provide them with training 55 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL CHALLENGE 6: GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION Indicator 19: Management Do agencies affecting landscape management have the capacity to carry out the functions assigned to them? 1. All agencies are dysfunctional, and none have the requisite capacity to carry out the functions assigned to them 2. On the whole, agencies have low capacity to carry out the functions assigned to them 3. On the whole, agencies have moderate capacity to carry out the functions assigned to them 4. On the whole, agencies have good capacity but cannot carry out their functions fully 5. Agencies have full capacity to carry out the functions assigned to them NOTES Assigned functions to consider include: ✤ Planning and coordination ✤ Implementation of plans ✤ Collection of revenues ✤ Transfer of funds and benefit sharing ✤ Issuance of permits, licenses, and concessions ✤ Creation and enforcement of regulations ✤ Resource management generally ✤ Data collection ✤ Maintenance of government equipment and infrastructure This question overlaps in part with other more specific indicators related to planning, budgeting, auditing, monitoring, and staffing of agencies. However, it is broader, intended to measure one aspect of the overall quality of government administration. ACTIONS There are a wide variety of actions, from specific to general. For example: ✤ Provide management training for senior staff ✤ Provide necessary equipment to carry out missions ✤ Provide technical training if that capacity is lacking ✤ Improve capacity for specific high-priority activities, such as boundary demarcation for protected areas 56 CHALLENGE 7: POLITICAL ECONOMY Even well-conceived projects can have poor outcomes if they are not in line with the forces of political economy. If people in the landscape lack a shared vision and are not open to cooperation and change, or if they lack motivation, permanent progress is unlikely. Policy regimes need to be relatively stable to encourage the sort of actions with long-term payoffs often associated with sustainable resource management. Some initial policy reform may be necessary to end unsustainable practices, but in the long run, policy regimes should not undergo frequent changes. Finally, someone surrogate needs to voice the interests of future generations. These people cannot participate in today’s decisions but will feel their effects tomorrow. Champions for sustainability are essential to represent these interests and assure that they influence today’s decisions. Successful landscape management requires: ✤ Cooperation and willingness to work together for the common good ✤ Stable policy regimes (not changing arbitrarily or frequently, but only as needed to address problems; not chang- ing in ways that discourage investments of labor and capital) ✤ Consideration of the interests of future generations (champions for sustainability) Indicator 20: Cooperation When there are grievances over resource use, are there effective redress mechanisms? 1. None of the various kinds of grievances have effective redress mechanisms 2. Only some kinds of grievances have effective redress mechanisms 3. Many but not most kinds of grievances have effective redress mechanisms 4. Most kinds of grievances have effective redress mechanisms 5. All grievances have effective redress mechanisms NOTES This indicator is a “sister” to the conflict resolution indicator under Tenure Security. While the previous indicator only looks at tenure conflicts, this one looks at conflicts over resource use, which may express themselves in various ways. According to the Regional Community Forestry Training Centre for Asia and the Pacific (RECOFTC), there are nine kinds of grievances that are associated with resource management and use: 1) access and use restriction; 2) benefit distribution; 3) competing demands; 4) conflict management capacity (conflict over how conflicts ought to be resolved); 5) leadership; 6) legal and policy frameworks; 7) participation and information; 8) quality of resources; and 9) tenure security. This indicator considers the first eight kinds of grievances. 57 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL CHALLENGE 7: POLITICAL ECONOMY NOTES (continued) Different grievances may go before different forums – in the executive, in the courts, in the legislature, in traditional platforms. “Effective” mechanisms are accessible, affordable, swift, and fair. Persistence of conflict is evidence that grievance mechanisms are ineffective. ACTIONS ✤ Conduct an expert review of existing grievance and redress mechanisms, with an eye to reform ✤ Set up new mechanisms to speed resolution of conflicts (e.g., mobile courts, mediation venues) ✤ Train officials in conflict management ✤ “Level the playing field” by making expert advice available on how to use existing conflict mechanisms (e.g., pro- vide people who cannot otherwise afford it with free legal advice or train local people to act as paralegals) ✤ If existing conflict resolution mechanisms are overwhelmed with cases, support conflict prevention measures ✤ For policy and law grievances, improve public participation in creation and revision of policies and laws, to improve quality and increase stakeholder buy-in Indicator 21: Policy Commitment Are there frequent changes in the policies related to resource management in the landscape? 1. Most all policies are liable to change, frequently and unpredictably, which strongly discourages investment in sustain- able landscape management 2. Many policies are liable to change, and that tends to discourage investment 3. Some policies are liable to change, and discouragement of investment is moderate 4. Few policies are liable to change, and discouragement of investment is minor 5. Policies are stable and highly unlikely to change in ways that discourage investment in sustainable resource management NOTES Landscapes require stable, long-term governance to encourage investment in sustainable activities. If laws and policies are changing arbitrarily and frequently, people will not invest their capital or labor in sustainable activities. 58 CHALLENGE 7: POLITICAL ECONOMY NOTES (continued) If possible, tap informants outside of government to assess the effect on people’s willingness to commit to long-term sus- tainable practices. Weigh the impact on businesses large and small and on ordinary people in the landscape. If informants are not available, look at the basic sectoral policies that affect the landscape: forestry, agricultural, mining, energy, transport, and so forth. Look also at broader macro, fiscal, monetary, and banking policies that affect investments generally. Judge how frequently these have changed in the last three years. Score the indicator based on the frequency of changes, without direct assessment of the impact on investment. ACTIONS ✤ Support the development of good policies, tied to international standards for conservation of biodiversity, sus- tainable use of resources, mitigation of climate change, and protection of human rights, to produce a more stable policy regime ✤ Suggest the embodiment of policies in laws, which tends to limit the frequency of change ✤ Seek public commitments from leadership to pursue a stable policy regime ✤ Increase the capacity of government to model and understand the impact of policy changes on the investment climate and on sustainability Indicator 22: Champions of Sustainability Do stakeholders include powerful champions for sustainable landscape management? 1. Stakeholders in the landscape all have narrow, myopic self-interests and no one advocates for sustainable landscape management 2. A few stakeholders advocate for sustainable landscape management but have little influence 3. Stakeholders include some influential champions for sustainable landscape management, but there are strong oppos- ing interests which often prevail 4. Stakeholders include influential champions for sustainable landscape management, and they generally prevail over opposing interests 5. There are strong, influential champions for sustainable landscape management who face little opposition NOTES If people in the landscape—including people in government, business, working for NGOs, or simply living in the land- scape—do not place a value on leaving a functional landscape for future generations, sustainable development is unlikely. 59 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL CHALLENGE 7: POLITICAL ECONOMY NOTES (continued) Effective champions of the future are most likely to emerge and succeed if people widely share the values embodied in sustainable development. Ideally, these champions should be people in positions of power or influence, inside or outside of government, who communi- cate these values and influence others. The champions’ commitment should be ongoing and demonstrated through actions. ACTIONS ✤ Educate stakeholders about the value of sustainable landscape management ✤ Train the supporters of sustainable landscape management (often including youth, academics, certain NGOs) to become leaders and influencers ✤ Encourage coalitions of stakeholders with shared interests in sustainable management ✤ Support efforts to protect the personal security of advocates for sustainable practices CHALLENGE 8: RULE OF LAW Rule of law” is a technical term. In a culture that respects the rule of law, the law is carefully applied, the law limits discre- tion of officials and bans corruption and favoritism, and everybody expects people to obey the law. According to the World Justice Project, the four principles for governance by the rule of law are: 1. Everyone, inside the government and out, is accountable under the law. 2. The laws are clear, publicized, stable, and just. 3. The processes of adoption, administration, and enforcement are accessible, fair, and efficient. 4. Justice is delivered in a timely manner by competent, independent, and ethical representatives and neutrals. Rule of law requires: ✤ Consistent and equitable application of the law (equal justice for all in civil and criminal matters; application of laws not subject to the whims of the powerful; no discrimination against women, Indigenous people, landless people, or other minorities) ✤ Adequate law enforcement capacity (for criminal matters, attention given to preventing crime, detecting crimes that have been committed, and prosecuting offenders to suppress crime; capacity to adjudicate civil matters) ✤ Control of corruption (corruption includes abuse of entrusted powers for personal benefit whether inside or out- side of government. May include bribery, cronyism, nepotism, kickbacks, self-dealing, and so forth.) 60 CHALLENGE 8: RULE OF LAW Indicator 23: Consistency and Equity In matters tied to resources in the landscape, does adoption, implementation, and enforce- ment of laws adhere to the principles of accountability, quality of law, good process, and good administration of justice? 1. The principles listed above are never adhered to 2. These principles are seldom adhered to 3. These principles are adhered to in some respects but with notable lapses 4. The principles are mostly adhered to 5. The principles are fully adhered to NOTES Evidence of accountability: Laws are uniformly implemented and enforced. No groups are above the law. There is no widespread violation of law without response from law enforcement. Government officials are not exempt from scrutiny and enforcement. Evidence of quality of laws: Laws are published and widely accessible. Laws do not change frequently or arbitrarily. Laws are generally seen as fair. Evidence of good processes: Adoption of laws is transparent and participatory. Government administrators place the public interest ahead of their own or their group’s interests. Enforcement is not targeted to punish enemies, minorities, or other singled out groups. Politicians do not interfere with technical decisions. Evidence of good administration of justice: Courts or other forums where the law is applied are not biased, inconsistent, arbitrary, or corrupt. Judges and prosecutors know the law. They subscribe to professional codes of conduct. Judges and prosecutors reflect the make-up of the community they serve. Politicians do not interfere with prosecutorial decisions. For a national view of rule of law, consult the World Bank’s worldwide governance indicators database available at: info. worldbank.org/governance/wgi/ ACTIONS ✤ Support publishing of policies and laws in print or on the web ✤ Support translation of policies and laws into local languages ✤ Support training of agency officials and stakeholders about policies and laws 61 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL CHALLENGE 8: RULE OF LAW ACTIONS (continued) ✤ Support teaching about rule of law to school children and youth ✤ Institute prizes recognizing officials who promote respect for law ✤ Increase penalties for serious or habitual lawbreakers, for example, by debarring them from enjoying government privileges such as licenses or concessions Indicator 24: Criminal Law Enforcement Does the government have sufficient enforcement capacity to control resource-related crimes? 1. The government has almost no enforcement capacity 2. The government’s capacity is weak and cannot control most resource-related crimes 3. The government’s capacity is moderate and cannot control many resource-related crimes 4. The government’s capacity is strong, but it cannot control all resource-related crimes 5. The government’s enforcement capacity is fully adequate to control all resource-related crimes NOTES Law enforcement is an important part of the strategy to ensure good governance and sustainable landscape management. The government should have capacity to address prevention, detection, and suppression. From the Program on Forests (PROFOR)’s forest governance assessment tool manual: Prevention includes activities to stop crimes from happening. These include traditional forest patrols but also activities like education of the public about lawful forest use and cooperation with forest- dependent communities. Cooperation with forest-dependent communities includes actions that encourage community members to support the law and to bring social pressure against other community members who ignore the law. Detection includes actions to make the government aware of when a crime has occurred and to discover who is respon- sible for the crime. [Detection may include surveillance and other activities in the field. It may require coordination among actors ranging from those dedicated to law enforcement (e.g., police, customs agents) to those that simply have eyes on the ground (e.g., foresters, extension agents, community leaders). Detection techniques are becoming more sophisti- cated, using technologies like remote sensing, DNA typing, and mobile phone applications.] Suppression means efforts to stop ongoing offenses, bring present and past offenders into the justice system to seek suitable punishment or restitution, and discourage convicted offenders from committing further offenses. [Suppression requires well-trained prosecutors and judges, and also field staff who understand how to gather and preserve evidence.] 62 CHALLENGE 8: RULE OF LAW ACTIONS ✤ Encourage the government to treat resource-related crimes on a par with other kinds of crimes, in terms of resources devoted to fighting crime and penalties assessed against criminals ✤ Recommend optimal enforcement staffing levels (for police and management agencies) and assist in recruitment ✤ Train enforcement agents ✤ Run a public awareness campaign to encourage compliance with law ✤ Engage the public and civil society in watching for and reporting illegal activities ✤ Increase capacity of local communities to enforce laws or support enforcement actions of others ✤ Train customs agents and other enforcers working outside the landscape ✤ Convene a task force of agencies within the country or internationally to coordinate enforcement efforts ✤ Improve recordkeeping, reporting, and analysis of resource-related crimes ✤ Develop guidelines for people who levy administrative penalties and impound goods involved in crime ✤ Train prosecutors and judges about the nature and seriousness of natural resource crimes Indicator 25: Limiting Corruption Do stakeholders in the landscape perceive corruption related to natural resource use to be common? 1. Most people perceive the level of corruption in the landscape to be extremely high 2. Most people perceive the level of corruption in the landscape to be high 3. Most people perceive the level of corruption in the landscape to be moderate 4. Most people perceive the level of corruption in the landscape to be low 5. Most people perceive corruption in the landscape to be rare NOTES A corruption problem can: ✤ Interfere with public service delivery ✤ Deprive governing bodies of revenue ✤ Affect equity of access to resources ✤ Distort the market for resources ✤ Impose undue costs on resource users Corruption may surface in: ✤ Government concessions and sale allocation processes involving bribery or kickbacks 63 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL CHALLENGE 8: RULE OF LAW NOTES (continued) ✤ Public or private procurement processes involving kickbacks ✤ Collection of land taxes and resource-use-related taxes, royalties, charges and rents involving bribery ✤ Permitting and licensing processes involving bribery ✤ Grievance and dispute resolution processes involving bribery of participants ✤ Distribution of benefits within communities involving bribery, kickbacks, or other diversions of funds ✤ Advancement in employment, inside or outside of government, involving kickbacks of salaries ✤ Hiring of non-existent or non-working (ghost) employees to defraud the employer Technical management decisions may be skewed by political interference tied to corruption. For this question, include the courts as an agency working in the landscape. If data specific to the landscape is unavailable, look to corruption perception scores for the country at large, such as those in Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index or the World Bank’s control of corruption indicator in the Worldwide Governance Indicators database. ACTIONS ✤ Create safe and effective avenues for whistleblowers and the public to report corrupt practices ✤ Encourage adoption of professional codes of conduct that address corruption and bribery ✤ Clarify, and where possible, limit the discretionary powers of officials, for example, by ensuring that licenses, per- mits, and concessions clearly spell out the holders’ responsibilities and rights ✤ Promote transparency initiatives inside and outside government (e.g., EITI, Publish What You Pay, citizen report cards) ✤ Provide training, equipment, or other support to officials enforcing anti-corruption laws CHALLENGE 9: SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION The market powerfully influences resource use, however it often does not fully value environmental services. The govern- ment has a role in helping the market incorporate unpriced values, to promote optimal allocation of resources. Businesses, both formal and informal, also have the potential to improve resource allocation by adhering to sustainable practices and practicing social responsibility. Markets inherently tend towards efficiency, but not necessarily equity. Governments and businesses have roles in pro- moting equitable distribution of benefits from sustainable economic production. 64 CHALLENGE 9: SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION Responsible resource use requires: ✤ Sustainable commodity supply chains, incorporating values of environmental services ✤ Equitable distribution of benefits and costs (includes avoidance of elite capture) Indicator 26: Supply Chains Does the government promote sustainable supply chains through various incentives? 1. On balance, government incentives strongly support unsustainable supply chains 2. On balance, government incentives somewhat encourage unsustainable supply chains 3. On balance, government incentives have a neutral effect on the sustainability of supply chains 4. On balance, government incentives mostly encourage sustainable supply chains 5. The government’s incentives strongly encourage sustainable supply chains NOTES Sustainable production of goods and services is essential to overall sustainable landscape management. Management and use should maintain environmental and social values. Government should: ✤ Prohibit, tax, or otherwise penalize destructive actions ✤ Eliminate harmful subsidies ✤ Provide incentives to adopt sustainable practices ✤ Share information to allow people to make good choices, including educating people about the benefits of adopt- ing sustainable practices ACTIONS ✤ Encourage third-party certification, including through support to communities and smallholders seeking certification ✤ Establish chain of custody systems ✤ Develop sustainable alternative livelihood activities ✤ Promote transfer of sustainable technologies (e.g., efficient wood stoves, recycling, reuse, energy recovery) ✤ Ban unsustainable practices, with heavy penalties ✤ Subsidize sustainable practices through loans, grants, tax breaks, and so forth ✤ Educate people about the benefits of sustainable practices, including through use of extension and training ✤ Improve access to markets for sustainably produced goods and services ✤ Adjust government procurement to have a strong preference for sustainably produced goods and services 65 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL CHALLENGE 9: SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION Indicator 27: Supply Chains Are producers adopting sustainable practices throughout the supply chain? 1. Almost all producers’ practices are unsustainable 2. Most producers’ practices are unsustainable 3. Many but not most producers’ practices are unsustainable 4. Some producers’ practices are unsustainable 5. No producers’ practices are unsustainable NOTES There may be several supply chains to consider—from forests, farms, mines, and so forth. If there is no commercial production in the landscape (for example, if the whole landscape is a protected area closed to human use), then score this indicator as a five. To qualify as sustainable: ✤ Producers should be carbon neutral ✤ Producers should follow international best practice to minimize environmental damage ✤ Production that is based on renewable resource use should not impair the productivity of the resource. (e.g., limit- ing forest harvest to sustainable yields, conserving soil productivity, limiting aquifer use to recharge levels) ✤ Production that is based on extractions of non-renewable resources should follow international best practice to minimize waste ✤ Industrial production should follow international best practices to minimize energy use and pollution ACTIONS ✤ Disseminate information to producers about sustainable practices ✤ Support acquisition of equipment and skills to achieve sustainability ✤ Encourage adoption of third-party certification and chain of custody systems through technical and financial support ✤ Develop or strengthen codes of ethics or social responsibility and encourage their use ✤ Support adoption of legislation requiring sustainable practices ✤ Where businesses have contracts with the government, as with concessions, support development of model con- tracts that require sustainable practices consistent with international best practices ✤ Promote green consumerism (awareness of sustainability among consumers) 66 CHALLENGE 9: SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION Indicator 28: Benefit Sharing Are equitable, effective benefit sharing mechanisms in place in the landscape? 1. No, there are no such mechanisms 2. Equitable mechanisms channel benefits from resource–based activities to some deserving people in the landscape 3. Equitable mechanisms channel benefits from resource–based activities to some but not most deserving people in the landscape 4. Equitable mechanisms channel benefits from resource–based activities to most deserving people in the landscape 5. Equitable mechanisms channel benefits from resource–based activities to almost all deserving people in the landscape NOTES In a perfect market system, people have ownership or use rights that assure they will benefit from the use of resources around them. In many situations, the formal tenure rights are concentrated in a few hands. These rights holders may be the government, large private property owners, or concession holders. Governments and other rights holders have adopted benefit sharing systems, sometimes to address inequities and some- times to assure local support of businesses. Benefit sharing arrangements may transfer cash, goods, or services. They may target individuals, households, communi- ties, or local governments. They can be organized at different geographic levels and may differ by sector. Benefits can flow through: ✤ Employment ✤ Direct payments for goods or services, as in PES systems ✤ Taxing extractions of the resource and placing the money in a fund providing money, goods, or services to beneficiaries ✤ Direct grants of access to resources, as where the government allows local people to harvest wood fuel from public lands Community forest management can qualify as benefit sharing if the community gets to keep some or all of the benefits from the forest. Equitable systems should aim to reduce poverty or address basic local needs. They should be resistant to interest capture, benefiting large numbers of poor and resource-dependent people rather than the well-off. Some specific factors to consider regarding whether sharing is equitable include: 67 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL CHALLENGE 9: SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION NOTES (continued) ✤ Fairness of wages and other terms of employment ✤ Where payments are made to communities, how fairly that income is shared within the community ✤ Where payments are made to local government, how fairly those benefits are then distributed, directly or indirectly, to local people ✤ Whether royalty payments made to resource owners reflect market rates ACTIONS ✤ Support formalization of benefit sharing arrangements ✤ Promote the expansion of coverage ✤ Support transparency in benefit sharing, including in wage structures ✤ Support audits of benefit distribution systems ✤ Encourage resource owners to update royalties for resource use on a regular basis ✤ Assist and empower local communities in negotiating with outsiders for the use of their resources ✤ Help the government develop model benefit sharing language for concession contracts CHALLENGE 10: RESILIENCE OF LANDSCAPES AND PEOPLE Too often people look at landscapes as static, evaluating the quality of landscape governance based on a single point in time. In reality, landscapes are dynamic. They are exposed to changing stresses, internal and external, and they need to be resilient to maintain sustainability. The indicators here aim to probe the capacity of the landscape system to anticipate and respond to these stresses. Resilient landscapes require: ✤ Plans that try to anticipate stresses (due to climate change, disasters, human migration, etc.) ✤ Capacity to respond to foreseeable stresses) Indicator 29: Planning for Stress Does planning consider environmental, economic, political, and social stress that threaten the landscape? 1. Planning ignores the main foreseeable stresses 68 CHALLENGE 10: RESILIENCE OF LANDSCAPES AND PEOPLE 2. Planning considers some foreseeable stresses 3. Planning considers many but not most foreseeable stresses 4. Planning considers most foreseeable stresses 5. Planning considers all foreseeable stresses NOTES Planning should try to anticipate stresses from both gradual and abrupt change. Gradual change would be indicated by trends (e.g., population growth) while abrupt change would come as shocks (e.g., war-triggered migration). Particularly because of climate change, shocks (e.g., storms or droughts) could become more severe and frequent. Other kinds of shocks that planners might consider include earthquakes, economic downturns, political instability, wild- fires, pest outbreaks, and epidemics. The plans to consider here may be ones made by varied agencies and may not be limited to the landscape. All levels of government need to be alert to potential stresses. The scoring of this indicator should reflect that need. ACTIONS ✤ Train planners ✤ Support revision of plans ✤ Provide planners with access to data to help identify stresses (e.g., climate projections, maps indicating geo- logical hazards) ✤ Provide access to models that help predict or understand the impact of stresses Indicator 30: Capacity to Respond In practice, is the government helping people become more resilient to stressors? 1. The government is doing nothing to help people prepare 2. The government is doing very little to help people prepare 3. The government has some effective programs to help people prepare 4. The government has several effective programs to help people prepare 5. The government has a comprehensive set of programs to help people prepare 69 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL CHALLENGE 10: RESILIENCE OF LANDSCAPES AND PEOPLE NOTES This topic focuses broadly on resilience. If there are concerns about resilience to specific stresses, such as those con- nected to climate change, customized indicators could cover preparedness for those. Ideally, ✤ There should be systems to detect emerging stresses ✤ There should be forecasting and early warning for predictable stresses that could include weather, but could also include forecasts of economic conditions, water availability, climate trends, and so forth ✤ There should be support from the government to help people withstand the stresses Increasing incomes and assets and reducing poverty generally helps people become more resilient. Looking at climate change may help score this indicator. Look at the country’s National Adaptation Plan and consider the stresses identified in the plan, how advanced the plan is, and how much of the plan is being implemented in the landscape. ACTIONS There are many possible actions, depending on the stress. Actions could aim to reduce the likelihood that a stress will cause harm, make people ready to respond to stresses, or help people after damage occurs. For example, for flooding: ✤ Construction of flood control devices or relocation of structures would reduce the likely harm ✤ Better weather forecasting and public education about flood preparation would make people ready to respond ✤ Subsidized flood insurance or low interest loans for rebuilding would help people respond after damage occurs 70 Annex II: Sample Terms of Reference for Senior Consultant 71 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL Terms of Reference Senior National Expert (Short-Term National Expert of 50 days) Landscape Governance Assessment & Decision Support Tool (LGAT) I. Introduction The landscape governance assessment and decision support tool (the “LGAT”) helps address governance challenges in landscape use and management. The LGAT will help decision makers, planners, and stakeholders identify areas needing improvement, formulate targeted and actionable proposals to improve governance, make informed choices regarding reform priorities, and provide indicators to monitor the progress of actions. The Senior National Expert plays a leading role in applying the tool. The Expert will work under the supervision of . The Expert will also work closely with . II. Scope of Work The steps to scoring the indicators are illustrated in Figure A1. The steps to applying the decision support system are illus- trated in Figure A2. The Senior National Expert will undertake these tasks: Task I. Applying the assessment tool (figure A1, steps 2 through 6). ✤ The Expert will research the landscape of concern, identify stakeholders, and do an initial scoring of the LGAT indicators. ✤ The Expert will vet the scores with a small group of experts. ✤ The Expert will vet the scores in a larger stakeholder workshop. ✤ The Expert will prepare a report on the workshop, the scores, and the resulting landscape governance index. Task II. Applying the decision support system (figure A2, steps 1 through 6). ✤ At the same workshop, the Expert will help the stakeholders prioritize areas for reform and brainstorm actions. ✤ The Expert will edit and sort the suggested actions, analyze them, and prepare recommendations for reform. ✤ The Expert will vet the recommendations with interested experts and stakeholders. ✤ The Expert will prepare a policy brief recommending reforms. Task III. Debriefing and Information Sharing. ✤ The Expert will meet with interested staff (internal) and government officials (external) to brief them on the assess- ment and the recommendations. Based on mutual agreement, the ToR will be expanded with additional tasks related to the application of the decision sup- port tool. If necessary, this agreement also covers addition of days to the contract. 72 Figure A1: Steps to Applying the Assessment Tool STEP 1 Initiator starts the process; designates people to apply to the tool (the users or user 2 User gathers information on scope: landscape, problems of concern, affected stakeholders 3 User scores LGAT indicators and assesses their trends 4 User vets scores with small number of experts 5 User vets scores with larger group of stakeholders through workshop or survey 6 User prepares report on LGAT scoring Source: Original figure produced to illustrate the LGAT scoring steps. III. Expected Outputs ✤ An initial scoring of the LGAT indicators, entered into the LGAT spreadsheet. ✤ A workshop plan and list of participants. ✤ A workshop report, noting any disagreements over core indicator scores, the outcome of the priority-setting exer- cise, and the options suggested for action. ✤ The filled-out decision support tool spreadsheets analyzing plausible options. ✤ A policy brief with recommendations for actions to improve governance. ✤ A short PowerPoint presentation for the internal debriefing. ✤ A short PowerPoint presentation for the information-sharing sessions. IV. Desirable Qualifications ✤ An advanced degree in forestry, natural resource economics, governance, or management. 73 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL ✤ At least 10 years of field experience in or the region. ✤ Extensive knowledge of natural resource management and governance and rural development issues in . ✤ Skills and experience working with multi-sectoral audiences such as government officials, NGOs, and the private sector. ✤ Experience in conducting surveys, assessments, or other such exercises. ✤ Fluency in English and . ✤ Familiarity with projects and processes in . V. Duration of the Contract The consultancy is expected to require 50 days of work. Tasks I and II should be completed by . Task III should be completed by . Figure A2: Steps to Apply the Decision Support System STEP 1 Stakeholder vetting workshop for LGAT takes additional steps to identify priorities and brain- storm interventions. 2 User refines the interventions and adds to the list 3 User eliminates clearly impractical interventions and evaluates the remaining interventions, scoring them on several factors 4 Based on scores, user selects the best pathways forward 5 User vets selections with key stakeholders 6 User writes up results in policy brief Source: Original figure produced to illustrate the DSS steps. 74 Annex III: Sample Agenda for Two- Day Vetting Workshop 75 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL Landscape Governance Assessment Workshop Date: Venue: Program Day 1: Introduction to the LGAT and Vetting of LGAT Scores 09:00 Registration 09:45 Welcome by 10:00 Introduction of participants. • Participants introduce themselves, their organization, and work done in the landscape 10:30 Introduction to the LGAT by 10:50 Introduction to the landscape by 11:00 Coffee/Tea Break 11:15 Explanation of the LGAT scores 11:25 Exercise 1: Vetting of LGAT scores • Participants are guided through the LGAT challenges and sub-questions • Participants are prompted to give their opinion on the correct score and justification for it Leading questions: • Does anyone disagree with the current score? • What should the correct score be and why? 13:00 Lunch break 14:00 Continue with Exercise 1 16:30 Feedback from Exercise 1 17:00 Close of session 76 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL Day 2: Prioritizing Challenges and Brainstorming Actions 09:00 Registration 10:00 Exercise 2: Identifying challenges of high priority (individual assignment). • Participants will go through the 10 landscape challenges and rank them in order of importance and their need for addressing 11:00 Coffee/Tea Break 11:15 Exercise 3: Brainstorming necessary actions (group assignment) • Participants will be split into groups of 4/5 based on a representative sample of stakeholders • Each group will come up with 10-15 landscape actions that address priority challenges Leading questions: • What actions can be implemented to address the challenges? • Can these actions be implemented at the landscape-scale? If not, what are some landscape-scale actions? • What timescale are the actions suited to, i.e., short-term, mid-term, long-term? (Set actions for all timescales.) • What are the expected outcomes of the actions (interim outcomes and final outcomes)? • What agencies are best placed to lead the identified actions? 13:00 Lunch break 14:00 Continue with Exercise 3 16:30 Feedback from Exercise 3 • Each group will give their feedback from the exercise and indicate the options they came up with 16:45 Closing remarks 17:00 Close of workshop 77 78 Annex IV: Sample Survey for Stakeholder of Indicator Scores THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL Assessment of Governance in the Landscape This survey presents indicator scores for 10 landscape governance challenges. The scores range from 1 to 5. In each case, 1 is the lowest score and 5 is the ideal score. Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the scores. If you disagree, please state why. Challenge 1: Institutional Coordination How well do the public agencies working in the landscape coordinate their work? Score: 3 out of 5. Agencies show regular but ineffective communication, and occasional signs of opposition and interference. Do you agree with this score? Agree Disagree Comments: Challenge 2: Policy and Legal Frameworks When the government adopts new policies and laws affecting landscape management, is the process transparent? Score: 3 out of 5. Many but not most policy and law-making processes are transparent. Do policies or laws have gaps or weaknesses inconsistent with good landscape management? Score: 2 out of 5. There are some major gaps or weaknesses in these areas. Do agencies in the landscape implement the responsibilities assigned to them under policies and laws? Score: 3 out of 5. Agencies show commitment to implementing many but not most of the responsibilities assigned to them under policies and laws. 80 Do you agree with these scores? Agree Disagree Comments: Challenge 3: Multi-Stakeholder Participation Do stakeholders outside government have adequate opportunities to participate in landscape-related decisions? Score: 1 out of 5. Stakeholders have almost no opportunity Do important stakeholder groups outside the government seek to effectively participate in landscape management and planning? Score: 2 out of 5. Only some of the important stakeholder groups seek to participate. How often are government decisions related to landscapes modified or influenced by inputs from multiple stakeholders? Score: 2 out of 5. In some minor instances, government decisions have been modified or influenced by stakeholder input. Do you agree with these scores? Agree Disagree Comments: Challenge 4: Tenure Security Are all types of land tenure rights clear? Score: 4 out of 5: Most tenure rights are clear, with no significant gaps. Where people have customary or traditional rights, are those rights recognized under law? 81 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL Score: 3 out of 5. Many but not most traditional rights have recognition under law. Do practical tenure conflict resolution mechanisms exist? Score: 5 out of 5: Practical mechanisms exist for all tenure conflicts. Do you agree with these scores? Agree Disagree Comments: Challenge 5: Landscape Planning Where agencies produce separate plans affecting the landscape, are the plans coordinated? Score: 1 out of 5. No, agencies’ plans are not coordinated Does planning in the landscape use high-quality data? Score: 4 out of 5. Most data used in planning is of high-quality. Does planning in the landscape consider improvement of livelihoods as a central challenge? Score: 2 out of 5. Only some planning considers improvement of livelihoods. Does planning for major investments and activities in the landscape include environmental and social impact analyses (ESIA)? Score: 4 out of 5. Planning for most major investments and activities includes high-quality analyses. Do plans try to address the drivers of unsustainable resource use? Score: 3 out of 5. Plans address many but not most key drivers of unsustainable resource use. Do you agree with these scores? Agree Disagree 82 Comments: Challenge 6: Government Administration How adequately funded are government programs managing resources in the landscape? Score: 3 out of 5. Many but not most programs are fully funded. For government programs managing natural resources in the landscape, are regular performance assessments undertaken? Score: 2 out of 5: For some programs, performance assessments are regularly undertaken. Do government programs affecting landscape management include regular monitoring? Score: 3 out of 5. Many but not most programs regularly undertake monitoring. Do agencies affecting landscape management have the capacity to carry out the functions assigned to them? Score: 4 out of 5. On the whole, agencies have good capacity but cannot carry out their functions fully. Do you agree with these scores? Agree Disagree Comments: Challenge 7: Political Economy When there are grievances over resource use, are there effective redress mechanisms? Score: 2 out of 5. Only some kinds of grievances have effective redress mechanisms. Are there frequent changes in the policies related to resource management in the landscape? Score 5 out of 5. Policies are stable and highly unlikely to change in ways that discourage investment in sustainable resource management. 83 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL Do stakeholders include powerful champions for sustainable landscape management? Score: 3 out of 5. Stakeholders include some influential champions for sustainable landscape management, but there are strong opposing interests which often prevail. Do you agree with these scores? Agree Disagree Comments: Challenge 8: Rule of Law In matters tied to resources in the landscape, does adoption, implementation, and enforcement of laws adhere to the principles of accountability, quality of law, good process, and good administration of justice? Score: 3 of 5. These principles are adhered to in some respects but with notable lapses. Does the government have sufficient enforcement capacity to control resource-related crimes? Score: 3 out of 5. The government’s capacity is moderate and cannot control many resource-related crimes. Do stakeholders in the landscape perceive corruption related to natural resource use to be common? Score: 2 out of 5. Most people perceive the level of corruption in the landscape to be high. Do you agree with these scores? Agree Disagree Comments: 84 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL Challenge 9: Sustainable Production Does the government promote sustainable supply chains through various incentives? Score: 4 out of 5. On balance, government incentives mostly encourage sustainable supply chains. Are producers adopting sustainable practices throughout the supply chain? Score: 2 out of 5. Most producers’ practices are unsustainable. Are equitable, effective benefit sharing mechanisms in place in the landscape? Score: 2 out of 5. Mechanisms channel benefits from resource–based activities to some poor people in the landscape. Do you agree with these scores? Agree Disagree Comments: Challenge 10. Resilience of Landscapes and People Does planning consider environmental, economic, political, and social stress that threaten the landscape? Score: 2 out of 5. Planning considers some foreseeable stresses. In practice, is the government helping people become more resilient to stresses? Score: 2 out of 5. The government is doing very little to help people prepare. Do you agree with these scores? Agree Disagree Comments: 85 86 Annex V: Budget Worksheet for Applying the Tool 87 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL Budget is for applying the tool in one landscape. Some of these lines are optional. Assessments have been done with a sin- gle consultant and a survey and virtual workshop. Fill in the cells or leave empty accordingly. CONSULTANTS, ETC. TOTAL Senior Expert’s time 50 days US$/day: Travel WORKSHOP Venue Meals Participants’ travel and expenses ____ people ____ per person Miscellaneous logistics Facilitator (if needed) 5 days US$/day: Translation (if needed) REPORTING Translation (if needed) Printing or communication costs TOTAL 88 Annex VI: Sample Report Outlines THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL Indicator Scoring and Workshop Report Outline I. Introduction A. In brief: This is a report on an assessment of landscape governance in _______ B. What is landscape governance C. Who initiated the assessment and why D. What landscape was assessed II. Methods A. The PROGREEN Landscape Governance Assessment Tool B. Initial scoring of the indicators and expert vetting C. Stakeholder vetting 1. Vetting of indicator scores 2. Prioritizing of challenges 3. Brainstorming of actions III. Results A. Indicator scores and overall governance index B. Priority challenges identified C. Stakeholder suggestions for actions IV. Discussion A. Revisions made to initial scores based on vetting B. Other observations on stakeholder views C. Next steps Annexes 1. Table of indicator scores and resulting governance index value 2. Ranked list of priority areas for actions 3. Actions suggested during brainstorming session 4. Stakeholder survey (if used) 90 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL 5. Stakeholder workshop agenda 6. List of experts initially consulted 7. List of stakeholders attending the workshop Policy Brief Outline I. Introduction A. This is a brief recommending actions to improve governance in the __________________ landscape B. These recommendations result from a project initiated by ________________________ C. The project used the PROGREEN Landscape Governance Assessment Tool and Decision Support System II. Findings A. The _______________ landscape has areas of governance that can be improved, as shown in its LGAT indicator scores B. The priority areas to address are _____________________________________________ III. Recommendations A. These actions are likely to improve governance in the landscape B. Recommended next steps, including implementation, M&E, and eventual re-scoring of the LGAT Annexes 1. LGAT Scores for the 10 LGAT governance challenges 2. Full list of actions considered 91 92 References Bethwell, Claudia, Claudia Sattler, and Ulrich Stachow. 2022. “An Analytical Framework to Link Governance, Agricultural Production Practices, and the Provision of Ecosystem Services in Agricultural Landscapes.” Ecosystem Services 53 (February): 101402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101402. Bonnot, Thomas W., D. Todd Jones-Farrand, Frank R. Thompson, Joshua J. Millspaugh, Jane A. Fitzgerald, Nate Muenks, Phillip Hanberry, et al. 2019. “Developing a Decision- Support Process for Landscape Conservation Design.” NRS-GTR-190. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. https://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-GTR-190. Chazdon, R.L., and M.R. Guariguata. 2018. Decision Support Tools for Forest Landscape Restoration: Current Status and Future Outlook. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/006792. Lindsay, J., A. Mekouar, and l Christy. 2002. Why Law Matters: Design Principles for Strengthening the Role of Forestry Legislation in Reducing Illegal Activities and Corrupt Practices. FAO Legal Papers. Rome, Italy: FAO. http://www.fao.org/ documents/card/en/c/5508ca22-100e-461a-9384-1f20361dce6b/. Marano, Langella, Basile, Cona, Michele, Manna, Teobaldelli, Saracino, and Terribile. 2019. “A Geospatial Decision Support System Tool for Supporting Integrated Forest Knowledge at the Landscape Scale.” Forests 10 (8): 690. https://doi.org/10.3390/ f10080690. Pechanec, Vilém, Jan Brus, Helena Kilianová, and Ivo Machar. 2015. “Decision Support Tool for the Evaluation of Landscapes.” Ecological Informatics 30 (November): 305–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2015.06.006. Reed, James, Joli Rumi Borah, Colas Chervier, James Langston, Moira Moeliono, Alida O’Connor, Elizabeth L Yuliani, and Terry Sunderland. 2020. “A Methods Toolbox for Integrated Landscape Approaches.” In Operationalizing Integrated Landscape Approaches in the Tropics, 89–111. CIFOR. Reynolds, Keith M. 2005. “Integrated Decision Support for Sustainable Forest Management in the United States: Fact or Fiction?” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 49 (1): 6–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2005.02.002. 93 THE LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL Credits Cover Acacia plantation near the village of Moussa, Yangambi, in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Axel Fassio/CIFOR, CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0 ii Indigenous woman in San Juan Comalapa, Guatemala. Ryan Brown/UN Women, CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0 5 Christopher Austin/Unsplash 8 Filip Zrnzevic/Unsplash 10 Man doing field work in a mangrove forest in Indonesia. Steven Lutz/GRID- Arendal, CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0 13-14 Yogi Aprelliyanto and Nick Kinling from The Noun Project 18 Aron Yigin/Unsplash 19 Renting/Unsplash 28 Women harvesting lemongrass at Chisapani Community Forest in Nepal. Chandra Shekhar Kark/CIFOR. CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0 32 Measuring Futunia Africana trees in Cameroon. Ollivier Girard/CIFOR, CC-BY- NC-ND 2.0 70 Tree planting season launch in Rwanda. Ministry of Environment - Rwanda, CC-BY-ND 2.0 78 Harvesting bamboo in the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region of China. Nick Hogarth/CIFOR, CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0 86 Women farmers at El Triunfo Biosphere Reserve in Toluca, Mexico. Peter Lowe/ CIMMYT, CC-BY-NC 2.0 92 Carpenter in Ovangu Region of Cameroon. Ollivier Girard/CIFOR, CC-BY- NC-ND 2.0 94 The Global Partnership for Sustainable and Resilient Landscapes (PROGREEN) is an Umbrella 2.0 program administered by the World Bank that supports rural livelihood development and landscape restoration while tackling declining biodiversity, forest loss, and deteriorating land fertility.