(d)network functions analysis,

(e)analysis of structural strategy, and

(f)analysis of research strategies.

5.Internal capacity of policy: Internal capacity of policy entails the analysis of motivation of policy team and their competencies to operationalize a strategy, In other words, the team must have the set of systems, processes, and skills that can help the policy to success in all conditions. The tools for gathering information toward evaluation of internal capability are:

(a)policy entrepreneur evaluation,

(b)strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats analysis, and

(c)internal performance framework analysis.

6.Establishing monitoring and learning frameworks: To develop a monitoring and learning system not only to track progress, make necessary adjustments, and assess the effectiveness of the approach, but also to ensure sustainability. The tools that are applicable for evaluation monitoring frameworks are:

(a)logical framework analysis,

(b)outcome mapping,

(c)journals or impact log analysis, and

(d)internal monitoring tools analysis.

According to Nagel (1984), the tools can be adapted and modified depending on the application of principles of different sciences. For example, application of polluter pay tax is an economic tool and subsidy assessment is a political tool for policy evaluation. The criterion for easy communication of policy tools is satisfied by a very simple model of tools known as resource indicators. The following section summarizes resource indicators of policy evaluation.

11.2 INDICATORS FOR EVALUATING RESOURCE DIMENSION

A policy indicator, in combination with the indicators of resource properties, should represent the dynamism of the resource sector, i.e., the flow of the resources should be reflected in the indicators. For example, in the field of forestry, the information on stock is usually provided by established terms like the area of the forest. But the proportion of forest to the mainland or the distribution requirements need to be constructed. If such a construction is made for a time-series analysis, a flow of information needs to be represented by the

144 Sustainability Assessment

indicators. Often it is possible to calculate from the basic flow of statistics or “primary” indicators to “secondary” indicators which cannot be directly observed but which may reveal more about the nature of the social system than the primary statistics. A “secondary” statistic usually uses a theoretical model as a basis for transformation.

The choice of indicator is governed by the purpose for which it is going to be used. The indicator chosen should be useful in recording the state and progress of a particular policy or nation; secondly, it should be useful in formulating policy. Culyer et al. (1972) illustrated that policy making requires three different kinds of indicators, each serving a different function and each complementary to the others, but none is sufficient alone for policy making. The three requirements are:

1.A measure of the output of policies.

2.A measure of deriving the social valuation placed upon different outputs.

3.A measure of technical possibility of increasing output.

Together, adequate information on each of these measures is sufficient to evaluate a policy. Such cumulated information should provide:

•The units in which the policy objectives are to be defined.

•Values/increments in each objective in terms of social worth.

•Specification of physical possibility. For example, how much of one good must necessarily be sacrificed in order to obtain more of another.

Corresponding to each of these functions, three kinds of social indicator are required in the field of forest land use:

1.Measure of State of Resource (e.g., forest land use (SOR indicators)).

2.Measure of the Need for Resource (NFR indicators).

3.Measure of the effectiveness of Activities on Resource (EAR).

Each of these indicators can be used at an aggregate level for explaining and for comparing policies, but there could be some ambiguity particularly in conceptualizing the kind of indicators applicable for different countries. However, some effort may be necessary to determine the indicator that will be more practicable in corresponding to what is ideally required for a policy evaluation.

11.2.1 SOR Indicators

SOR indicators are not specifically related to any specific input for promoting resources rather, they are measures of the phenomena that inputs are supposed to affect. SOR indicators are desired because they enter as arguments in a social welfare function for their maximization. The SOR indicators can be used at various stages of aggregation including the national and international data on the same resource. Comparison of SOR at less aggregate level is possibly useful for the comparison of policy performance in between different geographical regions. The sorts of practical use to which they may be used include in a quantitative expression of the choices that are available to decision makers, making a better international comparison or testing to see whether the resource processes of a particular country in general are conducive to environmental requirements. SOR indicators may be concerned with:

1.The total amount of resource, extent of area of resource, area as a percent of total area.

2.Resource distribution (may be presented by the following formula):

3.Resource quality indicator, e.g., average biodiversity indicator for a forest.

The basic assumption in the formula of distribution indicator is that the perimeter is given, a circle contains the maximum area with minimum perimeter. For a quality forest land use, all the three indicators should be significantly positive.

11.2.2 NFR Indicators

NFR indicators can commonly be expressed in terms of a target level that a particular SOR indicator should take up. Alternatively, they may be expressed as the difference between a target and the current level of SOR indicator. The NFR indicators thus can be expressed in terms of the SOR indicators. This approach appears to have some difficulties, since it is not clear how to decide the target. With the globalization of resources and environmental concepts, targets may be fixed at a national or an international desired level but the NFR indicator does not describe whether the target is regardless of the cost or not.

146 Sustainability Assessment

11.2.3 Effectiveness Indicators

An effectiveness indicator measures the increase in the SOR indicator to be expected from a change in resource status/health affecting inputs such as fertilization, irrigation, seeding, and/or hoeing. The objectives of such indicators would be, for example, to demonstrate how, by varying one such input, the SOR indicator responds during a different time period or to show how different inputs may substitute for one another in promoting a given SOR or change in SOR. Effectiveness indicators are a sort of input output relationship—use of such indicator is difficult in the case of resource because the production system takes a long time to give the output and there might be multiple factors behind the growth.

11.2.4 Comparing Indicators of Resources

SOR indicators, being free of any input content, should be distinguished from the NFR indicators. Cohen (1968) has stated that:

there is a need for statistics which indicate clearly and precisely present conditions in the society including the magnitudes of existing social problems and their rate of changes.

If the statistics fail to make this distinction clear, the magnitude of social problems can only be properly measured by taking into account society’s preferences and the opportunity and cost of satisfying them. That is why the NFR indicators should not be subsumed under SOR indicators. Policy values may enter into indicators either “directly” (e.g., NFR indicator valuation) and “indirectly” (e.g., relative value of change in SOR indicator to the change in some social indicators like education or income). They signify that though the analysis is about the environmental component of resource policies, its relevance to other social factors can hardly be avoided. Therefore, characterization of some indicators, such as evaluative as opposed to informative, or their scientific use as opposed to general use, cannot be considered very helpful in policy evaluation. If the society’s preference remains constant, the value of a given change in an SOR indicator will depend on the level of the indicator as well as on the level of other social indicators. Even if a high value is placed on a given change in SOR indicators, it would be necessary to identify a NFR indicator along the line before the change in the SOR indicator could be adopted as goal. Such a valuation strategy is useful when the policy evaluation uses the cost benefit approach.