Summary of Governance Assessment Tools and Indicators

Summary of Governance Assessment Tools and Indicators:

Prepared by Jessica Campese[1] with Gonzalo Oviedo and Jordi Surkin

12 April 2012

Contents

Natural resource and environmental governance assessments

The Access Initiative (TAI)

Governance of Forests Toolkit

Terrestrial PA Governance Framework

Governance Standard and Assessment Framework for Australian Natural Resource Management

Evaluating Governance: A Handbook to Accompany a Participatory Process for a PA

PA Governance Assessment Framework

Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF)

Community Dashboard

Participatory Governance Assessment

Land Tenure Indicators

SCBD Resource Kit

PGA for REDD+

Global comparative indexes

Indexes of governance broadly

Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI)/ (Governance Matters project)

World Governance Assessment (WGA)

Ibrahim Index of African Governance

Accountability-focused indexes

Global Integrity Index

Global Integrity

Corruption Perceptions Index

Open Budget Index

Human rights focused indexes

Human Rights Indicators

Danish Centre for Human Rights

Cingranelli-Richards (CIRI) HR Database

Freedom in the World

Gender-focused indexes

Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM)

Gender-related Development Index (GDI)

Gender Inequality Index (GII)

Media-focused indexes

Press Freedom Index

Regional public perception surveys

East Asia Barometer

Afrobarometer

National government-led and joint assessments

African Peer Review Mechanism

Country-led Democratic Governance Assessments

Joint Governance Assessment (Rwanda)

Metagora

Sub-national government-led and joint assessments

Local Governance Toolkit

Urban Governance Index (UGI)

Local Governance Barometer

State of Local Democracy

Civil society and community-led assessments

State of Democracy

Donor-led assessments and indicators

Country Governance Analysis

Indicators for Monitoring/ Evaluating Democracy and Governance Programmes

Additional resources (not fully developed assessment tools, but potentially helpful resources)

Monitoring Implementation of the Right to Water: A Framework for Developing Indicators

Indicators for HRBA to UNDP Programming

Guidance on Formulating, Implementing, and Monitoring a Human Rights-Based Poverty Reduction Strategy

Framework for selecting pro-poor and gender sensitive indicators

Fostering Social Accountability: From Principle to Practice.

Evaluation Framework for Citizens’ Voice and Accountability (CV&A) Interventions

Global Accountability Report (GAR)

Citizen Report Card

Tool name, developer, purpose

Governance concepts principles / Key features methods / Characteristics / Advantages & Limitations
(for IUCN use)
Purpose: purpose, objectives , aims as stated by developer
Governance: Governance definition/ description used in tool (if available)
Principles (or equivalent): Governance principles, issues, arenas, etc of focus (table uses terms utilized in tool wherever possible)
Key features: Main components/ composition of the tool/ indicator; what it offers
Methods: General description of approach taken or facilitated by tool
Level: Primary level at which tool is (/meant to be) applied
Focus: Main sector or issue area to which tool is applied (e.g., ‘governance’ in general, protected areas,
Detail: Level of detail / depth of coverage of the focus area
Application: Where/ when tool has been applied in practice
Replication: Relative difficulty with which IUCN could replicate model (simple, difficult, more info needed) given information available and complexity of process
Actionable: To what degree (high, moderate, low) the tool outputs support action, e.g., specificity of information
(nb: not an assessment of degree to which tool will inform effective action)
Resources: Skills and (time, funding) resources likely required to implement the tool/ model; This is a rough estimate only as detailed information is not available

Limitations:

•The tools and methods summarized in this table are a sub-set of those available; they are meant to be illustrative examples rather than an exhaustive list. Many more governance assessment tools are available at
•Categorizations are approximate and based on rapid desktop review (not first-hand use).
•The summarized information draws on/ is adapted from the cited sources, but the interpretations are the authors’. Replicability, actionability and resources, in particular, are rough approximations based on limited available information.
•Some advantages and limitations that are common to most assessments, and/or are covered elsewhere are not covered here. This includes that direct cross-country comparisons are difficult to make with most tools and that sets of governance principles align to greater and lesser degrees to IUCN’s.

Natural resource and environmental governance assessments

The Access Initiative (TAI)

WRI and partners[2]
Purpose: Spread access rights, focusing on CSO led assessment of performance of national governments on the implementation of Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration
Governance - Broad range of policy-making processes and actors that might be more or less open to public input and, as a consequence, more or less responsive and accountable to public needs….
Principles: Access to Information (Transparency and openness); Public Participation(A seat at the table, a voice in the room); Access to Justice(Redress and remedies); Capacity to Exercise Access Rights
/ Key features:
•Standardized indicators/ research questions (>100) and analysis worksheets;
•Detailed process guidance for forming country coalition and planning, executing and following up assessment
Method: Qualitative assessment by ‘country coalitions’ (primarily CSO members)
•Coalition gathers information on national law (policy) and case studies (practice)
•Assigns standardized qualitative statements to indicator/ research questions
•Qualitative statements converted to numerical value for comparison
•Outcomes inform communications and actions to engage governments in dialogue, promoting realization of access rights
•Country Coalitions given (technical, fund raising) support by core team throughout / Level: National, with local case studies
Focus: Procedural rights and environment
Detail: High
Application: Currently applied in 52 counties in Africa, Asia, Europe, and North and South America, with over 150 CSOs, starting in 1999
Replication: Simple
Actionable: High
Resources: Strong analysis, facilitation, information management skills; Likely time (several months) and cost intensive but will vary (tool includes budgeting guidance) / Advantages:
•Example indicators, guidance worksheets, and reporting framework
•Relatively standardized tools that can be used by local partners with limited external support, with results that are both locally relevant and somewhat comparable across contexts
•Widespread recognition, increasing use
•Strong assessment of core procedural rights with focus their operationalization
•Supports capacity building and responsive action
Limitations:
•Directly covers only procedural rights
•Indicators would need to be substantially adapted for NR context (focused more on ‘brown’ environmental issues)

Governance of Forests Toolkit

WRI and partners[3]
Purpose: Provide common definition and conceptual framework for understanding forest governance across developing country contexts, based on widely agreed principles of good governance
Principles: transparency, participation, accountability, coordination, capacity
/ Key features:Analysis framework (principles and components[4] examined against issues[5]); 94 process indicators.
Method: Qualitative and quantitative assessments by inter-disciplinary experts team, mostly national/ local actors
•Team adapts framework to context
•Teamgathers information (varied methods) and scores each indicator (low to high) based on provided diagnostic questions and documents explanation for scoring / Level: National and/or sub-national
Focus: Forests
Detail:High
Application: Assessments in Brazil, Indonesia, and Cameroon. GFI coalitions using results to develop strategies tailored to their priorities.
Replication: Simple
Actionable: High
Resources: Strong analysis skills and detailed information;Time/ resource intensive, depending on available info / Advantages:
•Example process indicators
•Useful 3 dimensional conceptual framework for governance
•Useful model for combining standard scoring and narrative explanation
Limitations:
•Only processindicators (assumes process  outcomes)
•Comparison may be difficult (substantial adaptation of framework across cases)
•Draft for pilot testing; no final product currently available

Terrestrial PA Governance Framework

Lockwood 2010
Purpose: Demonstrating performance and identifying where improvement is desirable
Governance concerns structures, processes and traditions that determine how power and responsibilities are exercised, how decisions are taken, and how stakeholders have their say (Graham et al., 2003).
Principles: legitimacy, transparency, accountability, inclusiveness, fairness, connectivity, resilience / Key features:
•Detailed conceptual model of governance and its principles, as well as between governance and management effectiveness;
•Performance outcomes for each principle (serve as indicators)
Method: Qualitative assessment by independent assessors[6]
•No strictly set method
•Recommends “evidence-based qualitative methodology” drawing on mix of administrative data, interviews and surveys
•Suggests subjective ranking against outcomes, using 1-5 scale (1 = very low, 2 = low, 3 = moderate, 4 = high, 5 = very high, NA = not applicable.), then averaged score for each principle to get “qualitative performance descriptor”[7] / Level: PA site
Focus: Terrestrial PAs
Detail: Low/ Moderate
Application: Preliminary case application using PAs in Scotland, Spain, France and India
Replication: Simple, but more method detail would be useful
Actionable: Moderate
Resources: Relatively sophisticated analytical skills and access to information and key informants; Time and costs will vary depending on data collection methods, but generally low cost / Advantages:
(More conceptual than practical advantages)
•Useful conceptual model, including ethical foundations and governance – management effectiveness links[8]
•Includes ‘nature’ within ethical framework
•Recognizes HR as ethical issue underlying governance principles[9]
Limitations:
•Performance outcomes meant as basis for ranking are not detailed (not clearly ‘indicators’)
•Difficult to aggregate across sites/ national level (not sufficiently standardized method)
•Not fully tested

Governance Standard and Assessment Framework for Australian Natural Resource Management

Lockwood et al 2008
Purpose:Develop standard for good regional NRM governance that can be used to benchmark and track governance performance[10]
Principles: Legitimacy, Transparency, Accountability, Inclusiveness, Fairness, Integration, Capability, Adaptability / Key features:
•Principles, sub-dimensions, and outcomes
•Outcomes’ indicators (and example evidence) of: current achievement; need for improvement; and “innovation”(opportunities for improving performance beyond current norms of good governance practice).
•Guidance on applying tool
•Explanation of tool development process
Method: Qualitative assessment by self, peers, partners, or external auditors
•Method for testing and presenting evidenceselected by assessor in agreement with organization
•Assessor: adaptsif necessary; takes evidence against each indicator;;qualitatively judges performance against outcomes (including ‘innovations’ if appropriate);
•Organization develops strategy to respond to the results and re-assess overtime. / Level: Multi-level
Focus: Natural resources
Detail:Moderate
Application: Adaptation based on testing of previous version in sites across Australia [In NSW: Murray CMA (Catchment Management Authority), Lachlan CMA, Central West CMA and Northern Rivers CMA. In Victoria: Corangamite CMA, North Central CMA and Goulburn Broken CMA. In Tasmania: Cradle Coast NRM and NRM South)
Replication: Simple
Actionable:Moderate
Resources:Some qualitative analysis skills, access to information and resource persons; Time/ costs will vary depending on data collection methods, but generally low cost / Advantages:
•Example indicators
•Incorporates recognition of “ innovations” (though indicators for ‘innovations’ could be improved)
•Process for incorporating assessment outcomes into ongoing monitoring
Limitations:
•Indicators fairly general
•Difficult to aggregate across sites/ levels (method not sufficiently standardized)

Evaluating Governance: A Handbook to Accompany a Participatory Process for a PA

Parks Canada and TILCEPA[11]
Purpose: Support participatory protected areas governance assessment
Governance: Interactions among institutions, processes and traditions that determine how power is exercised, how decisions are taken on issues of public and often private concern, and how citizens or other stakeholders have their say.[12]
Principles:Legitimacy and Voice; Accountability; Performance; Fairness; Direction / Key features:
•Governance principles with extensive criteria and suggested indicators
•Detailed process guidance (planning, execution, follow up) and illustrative case studies
Method: Primarily qualitative assessment by stakeholders (participatory)
•Assessors determine method, using examples/ options described in handbook
•Three phases: Planning the evaluation[13]; Carrying out the evaluation[14]; Taking action and learning by doing[15]
•Some standardization of principles and criteria with suggested process, but framework also supports local adaptation / Level: Most applicable to site level;
Focus: PAs
Detail:High
Application: Insufficient info (2003 was draft for field testing – no further info available)
Replication: Simple, but more specific method info would be useful
Actionable: High
Resources: Moderatetechnical analysis skills, good facilitation skills;
Costs will vary based on selected data collection methods / Advantages:
•Example indicators and criteria
•Provides guiding questions to assess power relations
•Highlights importance of context specificity and adaptability of approach
•Recognizes importance of broader context/ governance landscape (though this is not consistently reflected in indicators)
Limitations:
•Draft for field testing – may not be fully developed
•Process focused (little outcomes focus)
•Difficult to aggregate/ compare across sties
•Designed for community/ co-management (may not be fully applicable for other PA governance types)

PA Governance Assessment Framework

(extract from Heylingsand Bravo 2007)[16]
Purpose: support participatory assessment of co-managed MPAs
Principles:: Strategic Vision, Participation, Responsible Representation, Consensus Orientation, Empowerment, Equity, Credibility, Resilience, Efficiency / Key features: Governance principles, criteria, illustrative indicators and example subjective/ qualitative scoring method corresponding to the nine governance principles
Method:Qualitative
Method not elaborated / Level: Local/ site
Focus: PAs
Detail: Moderate
Application: Insufficient info
Replication: Insufficient info
Actionable: High
Resources: Will depend on method / Advantages:
•Example indicators and criteria
Limitations:
•Some principles defined in ways specific to co-management; applicability to other governance arrangements unclear
•Qualitative descriptors appear somewhat inconsistent (hard to interpret/ aggregate)
•Some factors may be double counted (e.g., representation as principle and contribution to effective participation and information)
•Directionality of some indicators unclear

Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF)

Deininger et al, World Bank[17]
Purpose: Review extent to which existing land indicators meet requirements and draw conclusions regarding the desired nature of the indicators, their coverage, and the process for their assessment
Governance: ‘the manner in which public officials and institutions acquire and exercise the authority to shape public policy and provide public goods and services’ (World Bank 2007).
Principles: Legal and institutional framework; Land use planning and taxation; Public land management; Public provision of land information; Dispute resolution and conflict management / Key features:
•Analysis of importance of land governance, methodological challenges, and existing assessments frameworks
•Suggested analysis questions and indicators
•Ranking framework (to allow rough cross-country comparisons)[18]
Method: Qualitative and quantitative ranking by local expert panel
•Country coordinator (with legal expert), puts together ‘tenure typology’[19]
•Local specialists (3-5 person expert panel[20]) collect information (studies, admin data, etc) and rank LGAF dimensions in their area of expertise (helps ensure targeted expertise and reduces ‘overload’)
•Tenure typology, expert rankings, and a summary of the justifications provided by the experts, and results from any sampling that may have been undertaken, determineconsensus ranking for each of the dimensions. / Level: National, with sub-national components
Focus: Land/ tenure
Detail: High
Application:Piloted inEthiopia,Indonesia, Kyrgyz Republic, Peru, and Tanzania, then refined
Replication: Simple, though more method detail would be useful
Actionable: High
Resources: Requires wide range of (local) expert input; Multi-stage process may be costly / Advantages:
•Example indicators for land tenure, with potential to adapt to other NR sectors;
•Combines standardized elements and local adaptation to support some degree of cross-country comparison (not strict ranking)
•Stresses learning from pilots rather than re-inventing process every time
Limitations:
•Narrow issues focus
•In practice, government involvement was ad-hoc (point to address in future applications of this model)
•Data sources may be difficult to acquire in practice

Community Dashboard

Various, including Child (2007)

Purpose:
•Tracking system for governance and benefits for communities that are managing wildlife and natural resources.
•Mechanism for active adaptive management and improvement of governance
•Practical mechanism to convert [CBNRM] rhetoric into practice / Key features
•Research-action tool[21]
•Prioritizes (sensitive) information sharing with participating communities as ethical responsibility and learning opportunity
Method: Qualitative assessment based on community designed survey/ interviews carried out by and with local people
•No set method, but main steps include:
•Engaging leadership, then community meetings develop visual mind-maps of natural resource governance issues and identify local people to collect data[22], (facilitators train them)
•Survey instrument refined w/ local inputs, including locally interpretable scale(e.g., 5 point scale using “smiley” faces and “frowny” faces)
•Rapid execution of survey, compilation in simple database/ visual charts, and present/ discuss findings with community to validate and further explore / Level:Local
Focus:CBNRM/ Wildlife
Detail:Moderate, but will vary by process
Application: Use in various forms throughout Southern Africa, including with multiple communities/ conservancies in Botswana (2007), Namibia (2007), Tanzania (2012)[23]
Replicable: Simple, through process will vary
Actionable: High, depending on process
Resources: Few technical skills, but good facilitation; Relatively fast and low cost / Advantages:
•Relatively fast and low cost process for communities to assess and address governance issues of their CBNRM/ wildlife conservancies (with applicability to other NR contexts)
•Highly adaptable
Limitations:
•Local only (horizontal and vertical aggregation difficult)

Participatory Governance Assessment