The 2010 report card broadly followed the same methodology as was used in 2009. This had been developed during a workshop with the initial four partner country NGOs in April 2009, following a piece of research into report cards published in How do report cards help?. It used yes/partial/no responses to questions about the availability of different documents and other sources of information relevant to the forest sector.
For 2010, the original list of 70 indicators, organised into 15 themes, was reviewed by the four partner country NGOs in May 2010. As a result, two indicators were removed and ten were added. Thus in total, of the 78 questions in 2010 applied by all of the partners, 68 are repeated from 2009 and could be compared year-on-year to analyse whether evidence of progress or retrogression in situation.
Indicators dropped for 2010
Both these indicators were regarded with hindsight as insufficiently objective and would too easily apply to all situations.
Indicators added for 2010
It was felt important to ask these questions in order to better understand some of the other indicators relating to tenure, access to decision-making and attitudes to the law from different stakeholders.
This question was regarded as an important precursor to the existing question, 'Are any environmental / social impact assessments for forest operations available to the public?'
These four questions are critical for understanding what is actually happening on the ground, once a permit has been issued.
This was suggested as a useful and objective indicator to assess a government's commitment to the rule of law.
This indicator, alongside the existing one on the forest authority publishing an annual report, helps to assess the level of proactive disclosure and dissemination by a key authority. It is also often provided for in the law.
In addition to revising the indicators, further clarity was provided on whether each indicator could be evaluated sufficiently from desk-based work (using the Internet or making enquiries to the relevant authorities at national level) or would require field level research to ascertain whether ordinary citizens were able to access the information that was most important to them. See the download on 2010 indicators for this information.
After careful consideration, it was decided to phrase four indicators in the negative:
Unusually, for these indicators 'yes' is marked by a red traffic light, as it was not possible to re-word the indicator in a simple way and have it express 'yes' positively.
Some methodological issues identified in 2009 remain significant and are reiterated here:
For more details on each country team's methodology and results, click on countries at the top of this page.
For more on the final common set of transparency indicators, and the key differences between the approach in different countries, follow the links below.