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 Method Figure T10 presents an example of the PIPA analysis undertaken for a dryland farming project in Ghana. The Strategic Innovations in Dryland Farming (SIDF) Project aimed to improve income, labor, land and water productivity for rural households (over 300,000 people) in an area of about 465,000 hectares in the Volta Basin in Northern Ghana. The project theory of change was as follows: the outputs (from various R&D activities, including training, relating to crop, soils, water and fish management) will be developed, adapted and improved through participatory research. As early adopters see increases in income, time saving and other benefits, they encourage their neighbors, friends and relatives. This leads to increasing adoption and adaptation of project outputs from farmer to farmer, community to community, and service provider to service provider. Other important project components included: • Improving domestic water supply so that women have more time to engage in income generating activities; • R& D efforts to reduce conflicts over communal water resources • Development of institutional networks to extend project outputs Key project outcomes expected were: • Improved cropping systems and soil and water conservation practices; • Improved utility of dugout canoes used for fishing; • Construction and use of domestic water harvesting systems • Improvements in the community management of water resources It is expected that these outcomes will in turn lead to: • Improved soil fertility and land/labor productivity; • Women having more time for income generating activities; • More water available for domestic needs; • Adequate water for dry season agriculture; • A reduction in water related diseases. The following key risks and assumptions were identified: • Farmer to farmer adoption occurs without the need for subsidies; • Ministry of Food and Agriculture promotes project outputs after the project finishes; • The National Varietal Release Committee approves the proposed project varieties. It was reported that the PIPA exercise helped identify complementarities and synergies between the various projects in the Volta Basin. Source: Padi et al., 2006. http://boru.pbworks.com/f/PN06 Impact Narrative-4.DOC Social Impact Assessment of Land-Based Carbon Projects (1.0) – Part II | 21
Main Sources and Further Guidance http://boru.pbworks.com/ Spanish version: http://boru.pbworks.com/Antecedentes 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 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., 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 Padi, F., Asante, S., Fosu, M., Alvarez, S., Rubiano, J., Soto, V. & Douthwaite, B. 2006. Impact Narrative for the Strategic Innovations in Dryland Farming (SIDF) Project. BFP Impact Assessment Project, Centro Internacional para la Agricultura Tropical. Cali, Colombia http://boru.pbworks.com/f/PN06 Impact Narrative-4.DOC T2.5 Advantages and Disadvantages of the Causal Model Approach Main Advantages or Benefits Main Disadvantages or Limitations • Represents a cost-effective approach to attribution, especially if used to guide indicator selection; • Effective project design tool; • Highlights external assumptions, drivers and pressures; • Puts the focus on the process of achieving outcomes and impacts, making it easier to identify needed interventions, thereby contributing to adaptive management; • It can be peer reviewed; • On-line support and software for the 'Open Standards' approach is available (www.miradi.org) • It is less good at picking up on unexpected or negative social impacts; • The lack of empirical or research data on the linkages between outcomes and (poverty related) impacts to support ‘assumptions’ (e.g., in comparison with the microfinance sector); • It is more difficult to use retrospectively (best to use at the project design phase); • It is less effective for 'differentiation', especially intra-household equity/gender issues than other methods; • A skilled facilitator is desirable; • It is difficult compare projects; • Different terminologies are used in different causal model approaches which can be confusing. Social Impact Assessment of Land-Based Carbon Projects (1.0) – Part II | 22
- 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: Table T4: The PIPA Outcomes Logic M
- 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
Main Sources and Further Guidance<br />
http://boru.pbworks.com/ Spanish version: http://boru.pbworks.com/Antecedentes<br />
Douthwaite, B., Alvarez, S., Thiele, G., Mackay, R., Cordoba, D. & Tehelen, K. 2008. Participatory<br />
Impact Pathways Analysis: a practical method <strong>for</strong> project planning and evaluation. Paper<br />
prepared <strong>for</strong>: ‘Rethinking Impact: Understanding the Complexity <strong>of</strong> Poverty and Change’<br />
Workshop. www.prgaaprogram.org/riw/files/papers/PIPA-Impact-WS.doc<br />
Douthwaite et al. 2008. Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis: a practical method <strong>for</strong> project<br />
planning and evaluation. ILAC Briefing 17. http://boru.pbwiki.com/f/PIPA-ILAC-Brief-preprint.doc<br />
Douthwaite, B., T. Kuby, E. van de Fliert and S. Schulz. 2003. Impact Pathway Evaluation: An<br />
approach <strong>for</strong> achieving and attributing <strong>impact</strong> in complex systems. Agricultural Systems 78:<br />
243-265<br />
Padi, F., Asante, S., Fosu, M., Alvarez, S., Rubiano, J., Soto, V. & Douthwaite, B. 2006. Impact<br />
Narrative <strong>for</strong> the Strategic Innovations in Dry<strong>land</strong> Farming (SIDF) Project. BFP Impact<br />
Assessment Project, Centro Internacional para la Agricultura Tropical. Cali, Colombia<br />
http://boru.pbworks.com/f/PN06 Impact Narrative-4.DOC<br />
T2.5 Advantages and Disadvantages <strong>of</strong> the Causal Model Approach<br />
Main Advantages or Benefits Main Disadvantages or Limitations<br />
• Represents a cost-effective approach to<br />
attribution, especially if used to guide<br />
indicator selection;<br />
• Effective project design tool;<br />
• Highlights external assumptions, drivers and<br />
pressures;<br />
• Puts the focus on the process <strong>of</strong> achieving<br />
outcomes and <strong>impact</strong>s, making it easier to<br />
identify needed interventions, thereby<br />
contributing to adaptive management;<br />
• It can be peer reviewed;<br />
• On-line support and s<strong>of</strong>tware <strong>for</strong> the 'Open<br />
Standards' approach is available<br />
(www.miradi.org)<br />
• It is less good at picking up on unexpected or<br />
negative <strong>social</strong> <strong>impact</strong>s;<br />
• The lack <strong>of</strong> empirical or research data on the<br />
linkages between outcomes and (poverty<br />
related) <strong>impact</strong>s to support ‘assumptions’<br />
(e.g., in comparison with the micr<strong>of</strong>inance<br />
sector);<br />
• It is more difficult to use retrospectively (best<br />
to use at the project design phase);<br />
• It is less effective <strong>for</strong> 'differentiation',<br />
especially intra-household equity/gender<br />
issues than other methods;<br />
• A skilled facilitator is desirable;<br />
• It is difficult compare projects;<br />
• Different terminologies are used in different<br />
causal model approaches which can be<br />
confusing.<br />
Social Impact Assessment <strong>of</strong> Land-Based Carbon Projects (1.0) – Part II | 22
Change language