Country specificity

In 2010 Grupo FARO from Ecuador produced a report card for the first time. This resulted in some new issues with the indicator set as forest sector there is structured in quite a different way from the original four partner countries. In Ecuador, there are no large-scale concessions as most of the forest is under community and private ownership. Thus the state does not play the same role in allocation of concessions to log or carry out other activities in public forests, nor does the private sector pay royalties to the state for redistribution to forest owners. As a result, many of the indicators relating to logging permits and fiscal redistribution were not considered applicable, even though problems about access to, use of, and benefit from the forest also exist in the country.

Each partner applied a similar approach to collecting data for the report card as they had in 2009, with the exercise in Ecuador based on that of its neighbour, Peru:

• In Ghana, CIKOD continued to combine the yes/no data collection with a perspectives-based approach. They simplified this from five different questionnaires for different stakeholder groups, down to a single format for all, and they slightly increased the number of individuals interviewed. They continued to concentrate in the same six districts as in 2009, but their report card has been adopted by a much bigger survey under a separate programme, which reaches 19 districts. Data complied from both initiatives is to be combined into a single country-specific publication.
• In Cameroon, greater use was made of local NGOs in conducted field assessments, whereas in 2009 this had been carried out by consultants. The coverage also doubled to four regions. A combination of individual interviews and workshops were used, followed by a synthesis process to provide a consolidated response for each indicator.
• In Liberia, as in 2009 the clear distinction between 'Does you believe it exists?' and 'Do you have it?' was used as the basis for field-level interviews with individual respondents. As in the other two African countries, coverage and the use of local NGOs to conduct the research increased. The survey doubled to six counties, and the three NGOs were involved (compared to SDI alone in 2009).

The approach taken in these three countries clearly seeks to build on the experience of last year that the act of research itself is a mechanism for increasing awareness and dialogue, and therefore greater civil society involvement in information gathering is a positive improvement. It also aimed to establish more depth of understanding of whether local stakeholders are aware of the legal and regulatory framework and able to access information. This emphasis on the local, even in a comparably small country, did however slow down both the data collection and in particular the analysis process.

• In Peru, DAR used the same methodology as in the first year; to assess the content of institutional websites against a well defined transparency legal framework, and to augment this with requests for information. However DAR expanded their scope to include nine institutions with direct responsibilities in the sector, and 13 others with indirect responsibilities (such as the finance ministry). In particular, in response to Peru's decentralisation programme DAR reviewed the work of four regional governments in addition to national level institutions. The transparency legal framework also provided a very clear basis on which to quantitatively compare institutions, and it did this in a prize-giving ceremony.
• In Ecuador, Grupo FARO used a similar approach to that in Peru, except that there are only three national-level agencies with direct forest sector responsibilities, and twelve other institutions with indirect responsibilities, to assess. In addition, Grupo FARO conducted a parallel assessment of the fiscal structure of the sector, analysing the level public finance committed to protection, regulatory control, and social forestry for example.

In Peru and Ecuador partners aimed to establish with greater rigor whether the legal and regulatory framework included provision for different processes to facilitate transparency. The assessment could be completed much more quickly than where field-based assessments have been conducted, and as a result country-specific transparency reports where produced earlier: DAR's in February 2011 and Grupo FARO's in May. It has also been easier to generate a sense of competition and reward for transparency between public institutions.