4.1 Introduction
In this Manual, the term “without-project” social or biodiversity projection is equivalent to the carbon baseline or carbon reference scenario – it is a projection of the current “without-project” social or biodiversity conditions into the future. The requirement for this is clearly set out by CCB Concept G2, which states that “a baseline projection is a description of expected conditions in the project zone in the absence of project activities. The project impacts will be measured against this “without-project” reference scenario.”13
• Describe how the “without-project” reference scenario would affect communities in the project zone, including likely changes in water, soil, and other locally important ecosystem services;
CCB Criteria G2.4 and G2.5 further specify that project proponents should:
• Describe how the “without-project” reference scenario would affect biodiversity in the project zone (e.g., habitat availability, landscape connectivity, and threatened species).
4.2 General Principles
SBIA Stage 2 involves a forward-looking analysis based on current trends and aims to describe what is likely to happen to the social and biodiversity conditions, and the processes that lead to them, in the absence of the project. During project implementation, monitoring will provide data to show whether the social and biodiversity conditions have improved in comparison to the “without-project” scenario. The “without-project”
social and biodiversity projections must therefore include:
• A description of the predicted “without-project” changes to the social and biodiversity variables that the project is most likely to affect – these changes should be linked in some way to the project-related land-use changes;
• A description of the starting conditions that the project intends to improve (from SBIA Stage 1);
• The social and biodiversity variables at risk of being negatively affected by the project.
It is clear from the above that SBIA Stage 2 should be iterative given that it requires a good understanding of the project design (SBIA Stage 3) and the likely negative impacts (SBIA Stage 4). Similarly to SBIA Stage1, SBIA Stage 2 should also maintain a strong focus on the processes or conditions most likely to be affected by the project.
For example, CCB Criterion G2.4 specifies the need to assess changes in water, soil, and other locally important ecosystem services related to a change in land use. In a REDD project, this might be the predicted “without- project” availability of NTFPs used in coping strategies during bad years for food production.
In order to help project proponents think about likely social and biodiversity outcomes and impacts (both positive and negative), Table 2 presents a useful checklist of potential impact areas for a land-based carbon project. Project proponents are also referred to Social Toolbox Section 2 and Biodiversity Toolbox Section 2 for reviews of the likely social and biodiversity outcomes, and impacts of REDD+ and other land-based carbon projects.
13 It should be noted that in the CCB Standards the terms ‘baseline’ and ‘reference scenario’ are equivalent to “without-project”
social and biodiversity projection.
Table 2. Potential Social and Environmental Impact Areas Social Development
Labor Rights The range of rights enshrined in the International Labor Organization Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work
Gender Equity Access to opportunities and empowerment of girls and women, as well as the reduction of discrimination and inequalities based on gender
Access to Education Access to, engagement in, and attainment through education
Access to Health and Sanitation Access to medical treatment and improved sanitation, notably through access to clean water and the availability of sewage treatment
Cultural Identity Respect for self-determination, intellectual property, and religious tolerance Environmental Integrity
Water Water conservation and quality
Integrity for Biodiversity Diversity of life at the levels of species, genetic diversity, and ecosystems Soil Fertility Maintenance of organic matter and biological activity, as well as conserving soil
from all forms of erosion
Climate Change Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and strengthening the resilience and adaptation capacity of people, their livelihoods, and ecosystems to climate change
Natural Resource Management Management of resources from production to post-consumption by supporting the integrity of ecosystem services, maintaining harvest levels that ensure regeneration, and reducing/effectively managing waste
Economic Resilience
Secure Livelihoods Understood as an economic concept incorporating income, wealth, poverty and employment, whether paid, voluntary, formal or informal, and with some resilience to shocks
Social Capital Social capital refers to connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them; it includes the concepts of knowledge sharing and social safety nets
Resilience to Economic Risk Assurance of self-reliance and the ability to counter risk through economic diversification and access to finance
Inclusive Value Chains Fairness and responsibility for all actors in a value chain, so that they consciously operate as one stage in a longer chain
Source: Based on ISEAL 2010.
4.3 SBIA Workshop Guidance
Developing Problem Flow Diagrams for Each Focal Issue In the Open Standards approach, the focal issues14
The first step in developing a problem flow diagram is to express the focal issue as a problem (e.g., gender inequity, unsustainable livelihood options, weak local governance). As can be seen from the examples in Figures can be described through a conceptual model. This is a flow diagram of the “without-project” situation that shows how different causal factors affect the main focal issue (expressed as a problem). The term ‘problem flow diagram’ is used in this Manual since it is a more understandable term for local stakeholders. For developing the problem flow diagram and subsequent SBIA Stages, workshop participants are divided into focal issue Working Groups (WGs).
14 As the Open Standards are meant to be an approach for biodiversity conservation project planning and management, “focal
6 and 7, the focal issue problem is placed at the far right of the diagram; participants then discuss and arrange causal factor cards to the left of the focal issue problem. These cards are arranged in causal chains that explain the current situation (see Annex 1 Section 5.4 for further guidance).
Projection of the “Without-Project” Scenario
After completing the problem flow diagrams, it is recommended that the focal issue WGs make projections of the “without-project” situation for each focal issue based on two future time periods – the short- to mid-term (3-6 years) and the longer term (10-15 years). This analysis, explained more fully in Annex 1 Section 5.4, should focus on the processes, consequences, and impacts of change. Guiding questions for these projections are:
• What will be the main changes associated with this focal issue?
• What may be the direct and indirect consequences of these changes, negative and positive?
• How will vulnerable local stakeholders (e.g., women, the poorest, the landless) be affected?
There is a tendency to consider negative factors that affect the focal issues, and it is important to also identify existing opportunities in this step. Also, a very useful aid for helping workshop participants think about the future “without-project” situation is a large-scale map, especially one derived from the carbon reference scenario analysis.
Figure 6. Poverty Problem Flow Diagram (Piloting REDD in Zanzibar Project)
Figure 7. Organization and Governance Problem Flow Diagram (GuateCarbon REDD Project)
4.4 Other Methods
Social Impact Assessment (SIA)
The SBIA workshop method should be complemented by participatory research methods such as stakeholder focus group discussions. A project with more resources could also consider using a scenario analysis (see Social Toolbox Section 5).
Biodiversity Impact Assessment (BIA)
Projections of changes to biodiversity are likely to be strongly correlated to expected changes in natural vegetation cover. For a REDD project, species that are forest-dependent can be expected to decline, if deforestation continues. Similarly, for a forest restoration project on degraded land, the biodiversity might reasonably be expected to remain depleted, if the project is not implemented. Local stakeholders can provide valuable insight into these scenarios, but expert analysis is also necessary for predicting which species would be affected and to what extent they would be affected.