gold standard local stakeholder consultation report - MyClimate
gold standard local stakeholder consultation report - MyClimate
gold standard local stakeholder consultation report - MyClimate
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Gold Standard Local Stakeholder Consultation Report<br />
the blind exercise with <strong>stakeholder</strong>s. Explain how both were consolidated.<br />
The <strong>stakeholder</strong>s’ blind exercise expressed the same or more positive scoring as the one given by own<br />
sustainable development matrix. The <strong>stakeholder</strong>s’ take on the same were generally positive and they<br />
proceeded further to provide measures to improve the outcomes or benefits of the project. The <strong>stakeholder</strong>s<br />
identified no negative scores.<br />
Stakeholders’ comments on the different indicators are assessed under section C.3. iii Assessment of all<br />
Comments.<br />
Difference in scores<br />
Stakeholders scored 5 sustainable indicators positive, which were scored neutral in the project developer’s<br />
sustainable development matrix. This is true for indicators, which certainly will be positively influenced by the<br />
project activity, however more in an indirect way (e.g. water quantity/quality, biodiversity, etc.) through the<br />
reduction of tree cutting and of firewood consumption. Since it will be difficult to attribute and monitor the<br />
project’s contribution to the improvement of these indicators, the scores are kept neutral. The indicator “quality<br />
of employment” was scored neutral in the own sustainability matrix, but was scored positive in the blind<br />
sustainable development matrix. Stakeholders pointed out that the opportunity for trainings would definitely<br />
have a positive influence on the quality of employment. This indicator was therefore changed to positive in the<br />
consolidated matrix.<br />
Indicator Stakeholder Own Consolidated Reasons<br />
score score score<br />
Air quality + + + Same view<br />
+ 0 0 It was afterward agreed that monitoring<br />
Water quality and<br />
water quality and quantity may be hard,<br />
quantity<br />
equally hard to identify what caused the<br />
outcome.<br />
+ 0 0 It was agreed that it may be hard to<br />
Soil condition<br />
measure and attribute changes in this<br />
indicator to this project<br />
0 0 0 It was agreed that it may be hard to<br />
Other pollutants<br />
measure and attribute changes in this<br />
indicator to this project<br />
+ 0 0 It was agreed that it may be hard to<br />
Biodiversity<br />
measure and attribute changes in this<br />
indicator to this project<br />
Quality<br />
employment<br />
of<br />
+ 0 + Stakeholder’s view was considered and<br />
score was changed in the consolidated<br />
matrix<br />
Livelihood of the<br />
poor<br />
+ + + Same view<br />
Access to + + + Same view<br />
Gold Standard Passport version 2.1 July 2009<br />
46