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

Attempts to formulate a complete indicator straight away seldom results in a good quality indicator.
Therefore, based on the characteristics of SMART indicators (see above), taking a stepwise approach
is best. Working through this process step by step, and worrying about the precise formulation of
the indicator later, will result in higher quality indicators that more clearly serve the project
developer’s purposes.
1. What? Brainstorm the variables, which may provide the means to measure change in the
outcomes, impacts, or objectives. During the brainstorming, the minimum or standard
quality of the phenomenon is taken into account (what and how good?).
2. How much? Define the magnitude of the change the project aims to achieve (performance
targets).
3. Who? Clarify who belongs to the target group for a specific outcome or impact.
4. Where? This includes specific information on the particular intervention.
5. When? This step defines the timeframe for measuring change.
The necessary timeliness of the data depends on the nature of the decision to be made – for
example, adaptive management decisions during project implementation versus CCB Verification.
For addressing routine management issues, frequently available data are required. Data collected
infrequently (every 2-5 years) or with a substantial time lag (> 1 year), are useful for tracking longterm
trends towards achievement of project outcomes and impacts, and can be useful for
confirming the accuracy of lower-level data.
How many indicators are needed? The answer is only as many as are necessary and cost-effective for
management and reporting/verification purposes. The challenge is to strike a balance between
having too many indicators, which tends to increase costs (in time and money) and too few
indicators, which could be insufficient to assess progress and make appropriate adaptive
management decisions. The general rule of thumb is two to three indicators per
activity/output/outcome and impact (USAID, 2003).
Several methods are available to develop indicators that quantify complex results, for example, in
the area of governance. These methods include rating scales, milestone scales, indexes, and
scorecards. These tools introduce a level of objectivity to subjective measures, although validity and
reliability of the measures can be an issue with these methods. Although designed primarily for
national level indicators, the Governance of Forests Initiative (GFI) Framework may help identify
governance indicators (Box T10). The Centre for Democracy and Governance (1998) is another useful
source for governance indicators.
How to measure the indicator (sources of verification) can be just as important as selecting the
indicator. Clarifying this at the same time as the indicators are being formulated is important since
discussions on how to collect or measure the indicator often lead to reformulation of the indicator.
The aim should be to select indicators for which data can be obtained at a reasonable cost and in a
timely fashion. A rule of thumb is that costs of monitoring and evaluation should range from three to
ten percent of the total budget.
Social Impact Assessment of Land-Based Carbon Projects (1.0) – Part II | 111