manual for social impact assessment of land-based ... - Forest Trends
manual for social impact assessment of land-based ... - Forest Trends manual for social impact assessment of land-based ... - Forest Trends
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 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
T9.5 Disaggregating Indicators<br />
Multi-dimensional indicators <strong>of</strong>ten need to be disaggregated, or broken down, in order to reveal<br />
differences between their various components. The decision on the level <strong>of</strong> disaggregation <strong>of</strong><br />
indicators is as important as the choice <strong>of</strong> the indicator itself. Indicators can be disaggregated along<br />
various dimensions, including location, gender, income level, and <strong>social</strong> group (<strong>based</strong> on ethnicity,<br />
religion, tribe, caste). Aggregate, country-level indicators are useful, as they give an overall picture <strong>of</strong><br />
where a country stands in comparison with others. However, these can mask significant differences<br />
across areas, gender, or <strong>social</strong> groups which will affect how well an <strong>impact</strong> can be monitored and<br />
assessed (Prennushi et al., 2002). At the project level, disaggregation is <strong>of</strong>ten necessary.<br />
Although smaller projects may find it harder to disaggregate by geographical areas, other possible<br />
examples include disaggregating by gender, income, consumption, asset ownership and ethnicity. It<br />
is also important to recognize that disaggregating indicators by areas, groups, etc., can have political<br />
consequences, and must be done carefully.<br />
Gender considerations are perhaps the most frequent reason <strong>for</strong> disaggregating data. It is well<br />
established that men and women use <strong>land</strong>-<strong>based</strong> resources differently, have different access to<br />
programs, and are affected differently by activities/programs/projects. Project proponents must<br />
understand these differences in order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness <strong>of</strong> the project, and<br />
to ensure that women and men have equitable access to the project’s benefits, and that neither is<br />
negatively affected by the project. Table T28 demonstrates how indicator data can be disaggregated.<br />
Table T28: Data Disaggregation and Analysis, by Indicator<br />
Indicator<br />
Aggregate<br />
Analyze by:<br />
Activity<br />
Increase in income <strong>for</strong> community from carbon payments<br />
Value <strong>of</strong> carbon payments to community <br />
Number <strong>of</strong> community development projects<br />
completed<br />
<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> direct beneficiaries under Indicator <br />
T9.6 Stakeholder Participation in Indicator Selection<br />
<br />
<br />
Gender<br />
<br />
Youth/Adult<br />
<br />
Additional Analysis by:<br />
Cash, Material, Labour,<br />
Source<br />
Project type<br />
Intervention type<br />
Until recently, the most common approach <strong>for</strong> the selection <strong>of</strong> indicators was a priori external<br />
selection where indicators were selected at the beginning <strong>of</strong> an <strong>assessment</strong> by external assessors or<br />
by the project development staff. This resulted in subjective biases as the monitoring process was<br />
Social Impact Assessment <strong>of</strong> Land-Based Carbon Projects (1.0) – Part II | 114
Change language