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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

References Aldrich, M. and Sayer, J. 2007. In Practice – Landscape Outcomes Assessment Methodology "LOAM". WWF Forests for Life Programme. http://assets.panda.org/downloads/loaminpracticemay07.pdf Angelsen, A. & Wunder, S. 2003. Exploring the Forest-Poverty Link: Key Concepts, Issues and Research Implications. CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 40. Center for International Forestry Research. Bogor, Indonesia. Angelsen, A. (ed.) 2008. Moving ahead with REDD: Issues, options and implications. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. Antle J.M. and J.J. Stroovogel. 2008. Agricultural carbon sequestration, poverty, and sustainability. Environment and Development Economics 13: 327–352. Asquith, N. and Wunder, S. 2008. Payments for Watershed Services: The Bellagio Conversations. Fundación Natura, Bolivia: Santa Cruz de la Sierra. Blaustein, R.J., 2009. Copenhagen to See New Forestry Standard. EcosystemMarketplace. com: http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/dynamic/article.page.php? page_id=7375&section=news_articles&eod=1 (10 May, 2010). Bond, I. and J. Mayers. 2010. Fair deals for watershed services: Lessons from a multi-country actionlearning project, Natural Resource Issues No. 13. IIED, London Bond, I. et al. 2009. Incentives to sustain forest ecosystem services: A review and lessons for REDD. Natural Resouce Issues No. 16. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK, with CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia, and World Resources Institute, Washington D.C., USA. Boyd, E. 2002. The Noel Kempff project in Bolivia: Gender, power and decision-making in climate mitigation. Gender and Development 10.2: 70-77. Brown D., F. Seymour and L. Peskett. 2008. How do we achieve REDD co-benefits and avoid doing harm? 107-118 in Angelsen, A. (ed.) 2008 Moving ahead with REDD: Issues, options and implications. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. Campbell B., Vermeulen S. & Lynam T. 1991. Value of Trees in the Small-Scale Farming Sector of Zimbabwe. IDRC-MR302e. International Development Research Centre. Ottawa, Canada. CARE. 2002. Household Livelihood Security Assessments. A Toolkit for Practitioners, Prepared for the PHLS Unit by: TANGO International Inc., Tucson, Arizona 2002, US www.proventionconsortium.org/themes/default/pdfs/CRA/HLSA2002_meth.pdf Carter, S. 2009. Socio-economic benefits in Plan Vivo projects: Trees for Global Benefits, Uganda, Plan Vivo Foundation and ECOTRUST. Catley, A., Burns, J. , Adebe, D. & Suji, O. 2007. Participatory Impact Assessment. A Guide for Practitioners. Feinstein International Center, Tufts University. Medford, USA http://wikis.uit.tufts.edu/conference/display/FIC/Participatory+Impact+Assessment Social Impact Assessment of Land-Based Carbon Projects (1.0) – Part II | 125
CCBA, 2008. Climate, Community & Biodiversity Project Design Standards Second Edition. CCBA, Arlington, VA, December 2008 www.climate-standards.org Center for Democracy and Governance. 1998. Handbook of Democracy and Governance Program Indicators. Technical Publication Series. USAID, Bureau for Global Programs, Field Support, and Research. www.usaid.gov/our_work/democracy_and_governance/publications/pdfs/pnacc390.pdf CIFOR. 2001. The Criteria and Indicators Toolbox Series No. 1. Conservation Measures Partnership, 2007. Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation. Version 2.0. October 2007. The Conservation Measures Partnership www.conservationmeasures.org/CMP/products.cfm Corbera, E. , Carmen González Soberanis and Katrina Brown. 2008. Institutional dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services: An analysis of Mexico's carbon forestry programme. Ecological Economics 68 (3):743-761 Corbera, E., Nicolas Kosoy, Miguel Martınez Tuna. 2007. Equity implications of marketing ecosystem services in protected areas and rural communities: Case studies from Meso-America. Global Environmental Change 17 (2007) 365–380. Davies, R. and Smith, W. 1998. The Basic Necessities Survey: The experience of ActionAid Vietnam. Action Aid, London http://www.mande.co.uk/docs/BasicNecessitiesSurveyAAV1998.pdf Davies, R. & Dart, J. 2005. The ‘Most Significant Change’ (MSC) Technique: A Guide to Its Use http://www.mande.co.uk/docs/MSCGuide.htm Department for International Development, UK. 2000. An Evaluation Study of FRP’s Carbon Sequestration Project in Southern Mexico. A Report by Planning, Economic and Development Consultants, Edinburgh, UK Douthwaite et al. 2008. Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis: a practical method for project planning and evaluation. ILAC Briefing 17. http://boru.pbwiki.com/f/PIPA-ILAC-Brief-preprint.doc Douthwaite, B., Alvarez, S., Thiele, G., Mackay, R., Cordoba, D. & Tehelen, K. 2008. Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis: a practical method for project planning and evaluation. Paper prepared for: ‘Rethinking Impact: Understanding the Complexity of Poverty and Change’ Workshop. www.prgaaprogram.org/riw/files/papers/PIPA-Impact-WS.doc Douthwaite, B., T. Kuby, E. van de Fliert and S. Schulz. 2003. Impact Pathway Evaluation: An approach for achieving and attributing impact in complex systems. Agricultural Systems 78: 243-265 Emerton, L. 1996. Valuing the subsistence use of forest products in Oldonyo Orok Forest, Kenya. Rural Development Forestry Network Paper 16e, ODI, London. Evans, K., de Jong, W., Cronkleton, P., Sheil, D., Lynam, T., Kusumanto, T. & Pierce Colfer, C.J. 2006. Guide to participatory tools for forest communities. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/pdf_files/Books/BKristen0601.pdf Social Impact Assessment of Land-Based Carbon Projects (1.0) – Part II | 126
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 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: Empowerment of women indicators:
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?