FGM Workshop Background Paper - REDD - VietNam

ii. Use as much as possible existing data. An example is private
certification. There are already several certification schemes
(e.g. FSC, PEFC) for assessing and monitoring
sustainable/legal forest management, focusing on the forest
management unit, but forest governance encompasses the
relation with other economic sectors: dealing with competing
claims on natural resources through land use planning
legislation etc. Such aspects are largely unaddressed in market
based certification schemes.
c. Consistency and complementarity in national and international
systems. Data needs at domestic and international levels should
harmonised and collected and reported ideally through a coordinated
national and international institutional architecture with appropriate
oversight mechanisms involving verification at both national and
international level. Similarly, it is important to be multi-level (this
initiative has a field level evidence collection focus), multi-sector, and
multi actor (private/public) appropriately involved in FGM.
d. Sustainability and cost of governance monitoring. The forest
monitoring system must be feasible, implementable and cost effective.
It must be compatible with the country’s longer term institutional and
organizational capacities and resources for forest related monitoring. If
the process of gathering, assessing, and reporting of information is too
costly there is a high risk that the system will collapse. In particular, this
risk may occur in the case of external financing once donors have gone
or funding cycles ended. Responsibilities and tasks within the
monitoring system must be agreed and properly institutionalized
among the different stakeholders to ensure continuity of the system
and delivery of results.
Box 08: Key success factors for improving and sustaining FGM
Established demand and a sense of urgency. Major stakeholders, in
23