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
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
It is recognized that some value judgments by the auditor are inevitable, but the rating system<br />
should broadly reflect the following interpretations:<br />
• Not achieved (0): there is no clearly recognizable theory <strong>of</strong> change, and conditions are not in<br />
place <strong>for</strong> future progress.<br />
• Poorly achieved (1): there are no appropriate mechanisms <strong>for</strong> achieving the project theory<br />
<strong>of</strong> change, although conditions may be in place <strong>for</strong> future progress.<br />
• Partially achieved (2): the project has a recognizable theory <strong>of</strong> change, but the mechanisms<br />
<strong>for</strong> achieving it are insufficient; moderate progress is being made towards delivery <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>impact</strong>s.<br />
• Fully achieved (3): there is a clearly recognizable theory <strong>of</strong> change, and substantial progress<br />
is being made towards achieving it with appropriate mechanisms clearly in place. The project<br />
is strongly placed to deliver on its outputs.<br />
This scoring system is used firstly to assess each project strategy and outcome, and secondly each<br />
element <strong>of</strong> that strategy/outcome as shown in Table T2 below.<br />
Example <strong>of</strong> Method<br />
Table T1 presents an example <strong>of</strong> a theory <strong>of</strong> change or causal model <strong>for</strong> the GEF- funded Seychelles<br />
Marine Ecosystem Management Project (SEYMEMP–GEF). This was developed following focus group<br />
discussions.Table T2 presents the detailed ROtI <strong>assessment</strong> <strong>of</strong> the project, and Table T3 shows the<br />
overall ROtI project rating.<br />
Table T3: Overall ROtI Rating <strong>of</strong> SEYMEMP Project Impact<br />
Outcomes-Impacts Assessment Rating<br />
Strategy 1: Conservation action 2<br />
Strategy 2: Systems strengthening 1<br />
Strategy 3: Mainstreaming 1<br />
Overall project 1<br />
Rating description: From a theoretical perspective, the project's design is in line with the Theory <strong>of</strong> Change,<br />
but the project did not identify mechanisms to remove barriers and continue the change process after GEF<br />
funding ended. From a delivery perspective, little progress has been made in removing barriers and<br />
delivering the Theory <strong>of</strong> Change, but conditions are in place <strong>for</strong> future progress.<br />
Source: Reproduced with permission from GEF Evaluation Office & Conservation Development Centre. 2009.<br />
The ROtI Handbook: Towards Enhancing the Impacts <strong>of</strong> Environmental Projects. Methodological Paper #2.<br />
Global Environment Facility: Washington DC. http://www.thegef.org/gef/node/2096\<br />
Main Source and Further Guidance<br />
GEF Evaluation Office & Conservation Development Centre. 2009. The ROtI Handbook: Towards<br />
Enhancing the Impacts <strong>of</strong> Environmental Projects. Methodological Paper #2. Global<br />
Environment Facility: Washington DC. http://www.thegef.org/gef/node/2096<br />
Social Impact Assessment <strong>of</strong> Land-Based Carbon Projects (1.0) – Part II | 15