Douala

1
GOVERNANCE OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITORING SYSTEM

• Simon Rietbergen
• IUCN Ecosystem Management Programme and
• NGO Co-chair, World Bank CEO Africa working group

2
JUSTIFICATION FOR SEPARATING EXECUTIVE AND
DECISION-MAKING ROLES

• Most of this workshop is about the content of the
  independent monitoring programme the indicators
  to be monitored and the way these can be
  verified. However it is also important to spend
  some time thinking through how the monitoring
  programme will be governed. There are a number
  of reasons for creating a Steering Committee to
  take on the decision-making role in the
  monitoring programme, including
• It avoids putting GFW in a dual role of judge and
  party and therefore improves the feasibility of
  execution
• It helps to put in place a transparent mechanism
  for dealing with feedback on the nature of the
  monitoring system and the quality of execution

3
GOVERNANCE QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED

• The questions that will need to be answered at
  some point but not necessarily all of them
  during this workshop include
• Which stakeholders should be represented on the
  steering committee?
• What should be the frequency of reporting by
  companies and by GFW?
• How should results of monitoring be reported?
• Can companies sign up only part of their
  operations?
• How to deal with information received from third
  parties?
• In the rest of this presentation, I will put
  forward some optional answers to these questions,
  for discussion by the group.

4
QUESTION 1 WHICH STAKEHOLDERS SHOULD BE
REPRESENTED ON THE SC?

• The stakeholder groups to be represented on the
  steering committee include the private sector,
  civil society, scientists, governments and of
  course Global Forest Watch in an ex officio role.
  The Steering Committee should be kept fairly
  small in order to allow it to function
  effectively. Options for representing
  stakeholder groups are
• For the Private sector syndicats nationaux, IFIA
• For environmental organizations IUCN, WCS, WWF,
  and local NGOs
• For scientific organizations CIFOR and/or CIRAD
• For governments COMIFAC
• Ex officio Global Forest Watch

5
QUESTION 2 WHAT SHOULD BE THE FREQUENCY OF
REPORTING?

• Frequency of reporting by companies and by Global
  Forest Watch need not be the same. Measurement
  of some indicators may be time-consuming or
  costly and can therefore not be done more than
  once a year, whereas others could be measured
  more frequently if this is deemed to be useful
• Given limited internet access for many
  stakeholders in the region, it is essential to
  have printed reports as well updates on the GFW
  website
• A reasonable option would be to have annual
  reports printed and update the GFW website monthly

6
QUESTION 3 HOW SHOULD MONITORING RESULTS BE
REPORTED?

• Reporting of monitoring results can be done by
  individual indicator scores or aggregate scores
  or both, with or without scaling
• Reporting by individual indicator scores is the
  simplest but may not give a very clear picture of
  the situation to the public although trends
  over time will no doubt be informative
• Indicator scores can be scaled (e.g. different
  values can be assigned ratings from 1 to 5) to
  facilitate reporting but choices on this will not
  be neutral and may need to be adapted to
  reflect different national contexts
• If there is a desire to aggregate the scores of
  some or all indicators, this may require
  weighting the more important indicators adding
  more complexity

7
QUESTION 4 CAN COMPANIES SIGN UP PART OF THEIR
OPERATIONS?

• Large companies may want to sign up part of their
  operations to avoid negative reports while
  putting the rest of their house in order. This
  may be justified but it can also end up being an
  excuse for inaction in those parts of the
  operations not subject to independent monitoring
• Clear rules are necessary to allow for companies
  to communicate progressive improvements in their
  operations without undue accusations of
  greenwash. A rule that would appear fair is that
  any company wanting to participate has to at
  least submit the whole of its operations in one
  country (including both concessions and
  sub-contracting) to independent monitoring. NB
  the reporting will be by concession and not by
  company.
• An additional suggestion is that companies not
  wanting to submit to independent monitoring in
  all countries where they operate commit to
  submitting their operations in other countries to
  independent monitoring within a certain time
  period

8
QUESTION 5 HOW TO DEAL WITH INFORMATION
PROVIDED BY THIRD PARTIES?

• This is one of the most important and at the same
  time difficult issues. There is a large
  trade-off between the desire of all partners for
  a maximum of transparency and the risk of
  companies getting exposed to unfounded and highly
  publicised, harmful criticism
• An interactive window on the GFW website could be
  made available for public posting of third party
  information
• If on the other hand information is provided
  confidentially, the handling of this information
  could be done confidentially, too
• In both cases, the Steering Committee should
  assess the validity of the information received
  within a short period (one month?) and report
  back either publicly or directly to the provider
  of the information, depending on how information
  was received
• The first step in the assessment by the Steering
  Committee is to give the company concerned the
  right to respond to the information provided,
  e.g. within one month
• Given that the proposed system is basically one
  of self-monitoring, it would be useful to include
  a provision for a few audits to be carried out
  every year to enhance public credibility of the
  monitoring system and increase incentives for
  accurate reporting by companies

9
CONCLUSION

• Need to agree on modalities for agreeing on the
  above issues and putting in place the Steering
  Committee
• Might be useful to get a consultant to assess how
  the above issues have been addressed for other
  private sector code of conducts
• No need to delay implementation of independent
  monitoring until all stakeholders have agreed on
  all the governance issues presented above. The
  important thing now is to get started.

10
(No Transcript)