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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

It is recognized that some value judgments by the auditor are inevitable, but the rating system should broadly reflect the following interpretations: • Not achieved (0): there is no clearly recognizable theory of change, and conditions are not in place for future progress. • Poorly achieved (1): there are no appropriate mechanisms for achieving the project theory of change, although conditions may be in place for future progress. • Partially achieved (2): the project has a recognizable theory of change, but the mechanisms for achieving it are insufficient; moderate progress is being made towards delivery of impacts. • Fully achieved (3): there is a clearly recognizable theory of change, and substantial progress is being made towards achieving it with appropriate mechanisms clearly in place. The project is strongly placed to deliver on its outputs. This scoring system is used firstly to assess each project strategy and outcome, and secondly each element of that strategy/outcome as shown in Table T2 below. Example of Method Table T1 presents an example of a theory of change or causal model for the GEF- funded Seychelles Marine Ecosystem Management Project (SEYMEMP–GEF). This was developed following focus group discussions.Table T2 presents the detailed ROtI assessment of the project, and Table T3 shows the overall ROtI project rating. Table T3: Overall ROtI Rating of SEYMEMP Project Impact Outcomes-Impacts Assessment Rating Strategy 1: Conservation action 2 Strategy 2: Systems strengthening 1 Strategy 3: Mainstreaming 1 Overall project 1 Rating description: From a theoretical perspective, the project's design is in line with the Theory of Change, but the project did not identify mechanisms to remove barriers and continue the change process after GEF funding ended. From a delivery perspective, little progress has been made in removing barriers and delivering the Theory of Change, but conditions are in place for future progress. Source: Reproduced with permission from GEF Evaluation Office & Conservation Development Centre. 2009. The ROtI Handbook: Towards Enhancing the Impacts of Environmental Projects. Methodological Paper #2. Global Environment Facility: Washington DC. http://www.thegef.org/gef/node/2096\ Main Source and Further Guidance GEF Evaluation Office & Conservation Development Centre. 2009. The ROtI Handbook: Towards Enhancing the Impacts of Environmental Projects. Methodological Paper #2. Global Environment Facility: Washington DC. http://www.thegef.org/gef/node/2096 Social Impact Assessment of Land-Based Carbon Projects (1.0) – Part II | 15
Table T1: Theory of Change for Seychelles Marine Project (SEYMEMP) OUTPUTS OUTCOMES INT. STATES IMPACTS Changes in key marine ecosystem components identified The systemic causes and effects of coral reef degradation analysed Socio-economic valuation of marine ecosystems and degradation Removing of grazing organisms forming plagues at selected critical sites Pilots established to minimise human-induced impacts within and adjacent to key refugia (management of coastal wetlands/ deployment of mooring installations) Whale shark conservation t d Long-term arrangement for marine protected areas network proposed MPA Systems Plan established & implementation modalities identified Marine Unit established within the Ministry for Environment Linkages established between Systems Plan and an integrated coastal area management process Information and education programme implemented The Seychelles’ marine ecosystems and their values better understood Coping mechanisms that directly address marine ecosystem degradation introduced Integrated MPA System operationalised Broad stakeholder involvement and cooperation in the implementation of regional marine conservation programmes ID: r&m methodology integrated into ongoing initiatives/ institutions ID: research & monitoring capacity built in Seychellois ID: Mitigation strategies integrated and funded by existing structures ID: Accountability and transparency in decision-making A: Government/ DoE has a clear vision of what it wants from plan and takes leadership role ID: Regulations established, understood and enforced ID: There are sufficient incentives for marine users participate ID: MPA network is adequate to protect key ecosystem ID: Financial sustainability of MPA network is established A: There is sufficient buy-in and common ground between IS: Coping mechanisms addressing major threats to marine ecosystems are rolled out nationally IS: MPA network is being managed effectively to achieve conservation goals IS: Mainstreaming/ implementation of enabling marine policies at national and regional levels Natural and human threats to Seychelles’ fragile marine ecosystem habitat and f d d
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: table so they can be read, discusse
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 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?