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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Example of a GFI Indicator Indicator: Community Forest Tenure Elements of Quality Governance Principles Recognition and resolution of community Diagnostic question: To what extent are the Participation forest tenure claims: land claims and resource use rights of local Accountability Communities living in and around public communities and indigenous peoples Transparency forests often have existing claims to land and recognized and resolved as a part of any resources that have not been formally process to regularize existing or establish acknowledged by the government. These new property rights in public forests? communities typically practice customary or Elements of quality: informal tenure systems. At some point, the • All pre-existing land claims and resource government may decide to formalize existing use rights of local communities are or establish new property rights in these identified in the area under question before areas. This may include selling the land, initiating any action awarding a contract for resource utilization or • Local communities are consulted as a part forest management to a company or of the decision-making process particular community, or establishing a • Local communities have access to all protected area. In order to avoid conflicts relevant information necessary to over land and resource use, pre-existing understand the situation and participate claims should be recognized and resolved effectively prior to establishing new or formalizing • Local communities have the internal existing tenure rights. capacity and/or external support to This indicator should be applied as a case effectively engage and negotiate with study of a recent instance where forest external parties tenure rights were formalized in an area • Local communities have access to where forest-dependent communities were adequate mechanisms of redress if they feel present. that their existing land claims and resource use rights were not adequately addressed Participatory mapping of community forest tenure: Participatory mapping is a way for communities to raise their awareness about the status and value of their resources and to make this information known to outsiders. It can also build community consensus on organizing to defend their tenure claims. Community maps may strengthen community negotiations regarding tenure rights deals with government agencies and private firms. This indicator should be applied as a case study to a recent community mapping project. Diagnostic question: To what extent is there meaningful community participation in mapping of community-owned lands? Elements of quality: • Communities have access to external support to assist the community mapping process • Map is generated through a broadly participatory process • Map is perceived to be legitimate by the community • Map is perceived to be legitimate by the government • Evidence that community maps have been utilized by the government for local land use planning decisions Participation Social Impact Assessment of Land-Based Carbon Projects (1.0) – Part II | 113
T9.5 Disaggregating Indicators Multi-dimensional indicators often need to be disaggregated, or broken down, in order to reveal differences between their various components. The decision on the level of disaggregation of indicators is as important as the choice of the indicator itself. Indicators can be disaggregated along various dimensions, including location, gender, income level, and social group (based on ethnicity, religion, tribe, caste). Aggregate, country-level indicators are useful, as they give an overall picture of where a country stands in comparison with others. However, these can mask significant differences across areas, gender, or social groups which will affect how well an impact can be monitored and assessed (Prennushi et al., 2002). At the project level, disaggregation is often necessary. Although smaller projects may find it harder to disaggregate by geographical areas, other possible examples include disaggregating by gender, income, consumption, asset ownership and ethnicity. It is also important to recognize that disaggregating indicators by areas, groups, etc., can have political consequences, and must be done carefully. Gender considerations are perhaps the most frequent reason for disaggregating data. It is well established that men and women use land-based resources differently, have different access to programs, and are affected differently by activities/programs/projects. Project proponents must understand these differences in order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the project, and to ensure that women and men have equitable access to the project’s benefits, and that neither is negatively affected by the project. Table T28 demonstrates how indicator data can be disaggregated. Table T28: Data Disaggregation and Analysis, by Indicator Indicator Aggregate Analyze by: Activity Increase in income for community from carbon payments Value of carbon payments to community Number of community development projects completed Number of direct beneficiaries under Indicator T9.6 Stakeholder Participation in Indicator Selection Gender Youth/Adult Additional Analysis by: Cash, Material, Labour, Source Project type Intervention type Until recently, the most common approach for the selection of indicators was a priori external selection where indicators were selected at the beginning of an assessment by external assessors or by the project development staff. This resulted in subjective biases as the monitoring process was Social Impact Assessment of Land-Based Carbon Projects (1.0) – Part II | 114
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 and 100: einforce existing institutions or n
Page 101 and 102: PROJECT: PROFAFOR TYPE: Plantations
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: Box T10. Indicators Derived from th
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?