manual for social impact assessment of land-based ... - Forest Trends

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table T24: Summary of Direct and Indirect Social Outcomes (Observed or Expected) by Project PROJECT: Trees for Global Benefit TYPE: A/R including Agroforestry COUNTRY: Uganda Observed direct outcomes: • Carbon payments to households • Complimentary income generating activities • Strengthened social and human capacity • Improved farm management capacity • Improved timber stocks Observed indirect outcomes: • Increased access to credit (loans) • Increased ability for households to make investments • Increased household spending (purchasing power) on basic needs • Improved household food security and diet • Improved fuel security (firewood) • Improved social cohesion • Decreased flexibility in land-use options (loss of alternative economic activities) • Decreased customary access to previously idle land (loss of customary ‘safety net’) • Increased reliance on purchased food • Renting land necessary for farming due to loss of access to land • New disputes and conflict between households regarding land use and natural capital in new woodlots Sources: Carter 2009; German et al. 2009. PROJECT: Scolel Té Project, Chiapas TYPE: Agroforestry COUNTRY: Mexico Observed direct outcomes: • New incomes from carbon payments to farmers • New skills developed in agroforestry Observed indirect outcomes: • Increased spending on food, medicines, and home improvements • Investment of carbon income in fuel-efficient stoves for homes • Improved indoor air quality in homes due to new stoves Sources: Smith & Scherr 2002; DFID 2000. Social Impact Assessment of Land-Based Carbon Projects (1.0) – Part II | 91
PROJECT: PROFAFOR TYPE: Plantations COUNTRY: Ecuador Observed direct outcomes: • New employment • Forestry added as a livelihood activity • Timber stocks increased • Improved land tenure security • Community credit system established with assistance of the project • Reduced land-use flexibility Observed indirect outcomes: • Water quality reduced in one of five communities • Surplus funds used for food, credit schemes and livestock Sources: Grieg-Gran et al. 2005; Smith & Scherr 2002. PROJECT: Noel Kempff Mercado Climate Action Project TYPE: REDD with Strict Restrictions on Resource Use Observed direct outcomes: • New employment in monitoring, micro-enterprises, and work as park guards • New alternative sources of income • Legal land rights secured for local communities • Employment lost in the forest sector Source: Smith & Scherr 2002. PROJECT: Makira Protected Area TYPE: REDD with Zones of Strict Use Restrictions and Multiple-Use Expected direct outcomes: • Improved natural resource management capacity • New income sources from alternative livelihood activities • Improved health services through health and family planning interventions Source: Holmes et al. 2008 COUNTRY: Bolivia COUNTRY: Madagascar Social Impact Assessment of Land-Based Carbon Projects (1.0) – Part II | 92
Page 1 and 2:
MANUAL FOR SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Page 3 and 4:
Table of Contents T1 Introduction t
Page 5 and 6:
List of Boxes Box T1. General Data
Page 7 and 8:
Forest Trends’ mission is to main
Page 9 and 10:
List of Acronyms (Core Guidance and
Page 11 and 12:
Sections T5 and T6 present a range
Page 13 and 14:
Figure T1: The Main Stages and Step
Page 15 and 16:
Figure T2: Example of a Conceptual
Page 17 and 18:
Figure T4: Generic Conceptual Model
Page 19 and 20:
Stages 3-5 of Open Standards The re
Page 21 and 22:
Figure T7: Diagram of the ROtI Anal
Page 23 and 24:
table so they can be read, discusse
Page 25 and 26:
Table T1: Theory of Change for Seyc
Page 27 and 28:
T2.4 Participatory Impact Pathways
Page 29 and 30:
Table T4: The PIPA Outcomes Logic M
Page 31 and 32:
Main Sources and Further Guidance h
Page 33 and 34:
T3 Sustainability Framework Approac
Page 35 and 36:
Figure T12: SAPA Initiative Modifie
Page 37 and 38:
1. Identify a small group of key in
Page 39 and 40:
Table T6: Example of LOAM Livelihoo
Page 41 and 42:
T4 Matching Methods T4.1 Introducti
Page 43 and 44:
Advantages and Disadvantages of ‘
Page 45 and 46:
Box T1. General Data Collection and
Page 47 and 48:
Box T3. Data Collection Methods Pro
Page 49 and 50: T6 Specific Data Collection Methods
Page 51 and 52: Table T8: Example of a Household BN
Page 53 and 54: The poverty index can range from 0%
Page 55 and 56: The PIA guide proposes the followin
Page 57 and 58: day. The ‘before project’ score
Page 59 and 60: Figure T15: “Before and After”
Page 61 and 62: Table T10: Pair-Wise Ranking Showin
Page 63 and 64: Impact calendars Impact calendars c
Page 65 and 66: A large sample is needed to be conf
Page 67 and 68: Table T15: Scoring of Changes in Ag
Page 69 and 70: Table T17: QPA Scoring of Social Eq
Page 71 and 72: T6.4 Participatory Economic Valuati
Page 73 and 74: Advantages and Disadvantages of Par
Page 75 and 76: The stories are collected from thos
Page 77 and 78: Main Sources and Further Guidance D
Page 79 and 80: Table T19: Stakeholder Analysis Pro
Page 81 and 82: Figure T18. Venn Diagram with Stake
Page 83 and 84: T7.2 Problem Trees Assuming it is p
Page 85 and 86: T7.3 Scenario Analysis Scenarios ar
Page 87 and 88: Box T7. Driving Forces in a Communi
Page 89 and 90: Maack, J.N. 2001. Scenario analysis
Page 91 and 92: In terms of non-monetary benefits,
Page 93 and 94: and duration of employment, the sta
Page 95 and 96: Physical Capital Positive changes i
Page 97 and 98: these strategic resource off-limits
Page 99: einforce existing institutions or n
Page 103 and 104: their occurrence will depend in lar
Page 105 and 106: HUMAN CAPITAL Increase in perceptio
Page 107 and 108: Table T26: Potential Mid- to Long-T
Page 109 and 110: Figure T20: Example of Relationship
Page 111 and 112: Figure T22: Additional Potential So
Page 113 and 114: T9 Further Guidance on Indicator Se
Page 115 and 116: Box T9. Goals and Indicators Defini
Page 117 and 118: When selecting indicators, it is be
Page 119 and 120: Table T27: Indicator Quality Assess
Page 121 and 122: Box T10. Indicators Derived from th
Page 123 and 124: T9.5 Disaggregating Indicators Mult
Page 125 and 126: Mayoux, L. 2001. What Do We Want to
Page 127 and 128: Landscape Outcomes Assessment Metho
Page 129 and 130: • Access to essential services (w
Page 131 and 132: T10.3 Social Indicators Derived fro
Page 133 and 134: Empowerment of women indicators:
Page 135 and 136: CCBA, 2008. Climate, Community & Bi
Page 137 and 138: James A., Pangtey V., Singh P. & Vi
Page 139: SEEP Network. 2006. Social Performa
show all

manual for social impact assessment of land-based ... - Forest Trends

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?