Participatory Subnational Planning for REDD+ and other Land Use Programmes: Methodology and Step-by-Step Guidance

Version 1.0

June 2014 Michael Richards & Steve Swan

Acknowledgements

This proposed methodology is an output of the project Delivering Multiple Benefits from REDD+ in Southeast Asia (MB-REDD). The MB-REDD project is implemented by SNV Netherlands Development Organisation’s REDD+ programme and is part of the International Climate Initiative. The German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety supports this initiative on the basis of a decision adopted by the German Bundestag.

Authors:

Michael Richards – Independent consultant, Oxford, United Kingdom

Steve Swan - Senior REDD+ Advisor, SNV Vietnam Programme, Hanoi, Vietnam

Citation:

Richards, M. & S.R. Swan 2014. Participatory Subnational Planning for REDD+ and other Land Use Programmes: Methodology and Step-by-Step Guidance. SNV Netherlands Development Organisation, REDD+ Programme, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.

Photo credit:

Images provided by UN-REDD and SNV Netherlands Development Organisation

i

Executive summaryThis document presents a proposed methodology, and step-by-step guidance, for Participatory Subnational Planning (PSP), tailored to operationalise subnational REDD+ programmes. The methodology is, however, generic and could be applied to any multi-stakeholder land use planning process attempting to achieve a triple bottom line of economic, environmental and social returns. Subsequent versions of this draft methodology will be produced after field testing and lessons learnt through real world application, which will inform development of a user-friendly manual.

PSP offers a holistic participatory approach to guide a multi-stakeholder design process, from analysis of the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation through to interventions to address the drivers and identification and mitigation of the environmental risks and benefits of those interventions. The MB-REDD project has also developed a sister methodology called Participatory Impact Assessment and Monitoring (PIAM) for situations in which candidate subnational REDD+ strategies and interventions have been identified following analysis of deforestation and forest degradation drivers. PIAM overlays a social and environmental due diligence process onto a set of REDD+ interventions that have been identified based primarily on their potential to achieve the carbon objectives of REDD+. (See Richards & Swan, 2014, for details of the proposed PIAM methodology).

PSP is presented as a cost-effective approach to subnational REDD+ planning, which facilitates full and effective stakeholder participation. It aims to:

1. Conservation of forest carbon stocks; sustainable management of forests; and enhancement of forest carbon stocks (which includes afforestation, reforestation and forest landscape restoration activities)

2. Multiple benefits include both carbon (emissions reductions and enhanced removals) and non-carbon benefits (biodiversity; ecosystem services; governance; livelihoods; rights; climate change adaptation; etc.).

• identify interventions that will comprise the REDD+ plan to address the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation, as well as barriers to the plus activities1 of REDD+.

• reduce or eliminate environmental and social risks, enhance the multiple benefits2 of REDD+ and minimise trade-offs between carbon, social and environmental objectives.

• facilitate adaptive management through monitoring against a set of indicators that will show progress towards carbon, environmental and social objectives.

• comply with REDD+ safeguards by generating information on how safeguards are being addressed and respected, as required for results-based financing under REDD+.

• increase stakeholder ownership and transparency of the REDD+ planning process and help apply the principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC).

• strengthen the social and environmental sustainability of REDD+ plans through identification, mitigation and management of social and environmental risks.

PSP combines three existing methods - stakeholder and institutional analysis, participatory theory of change and transmission channels analysis – and packages them into a cost-effective multi-stakeholder process to identify the constituent interventions, and associated risks, that are at the core of subnational REDD+ planning processes. The proposed methodology comprises five main stages (0-IV), which are broken down into 19 individual steps (A-T). This draft document describes the PSP methodology and presents step-by-step guidance on how to undertake it.

ii

0STAGE

Preparatory studies & training

Steps

A Literature review including collation of data on deforestation and forest degradation (DD) drivers and other carbon related data

B Stakeholder and institutional analysis

C Working group facilitator training

OUTPUTS

Report with collated data on DD drivers and barriers to increased REDD+ actions, and poster(s) for use in workshops

Summary of provincial land use programs/investments/ plans and key gaps in the light of REDD+

Stakeholder/institutional analysis report & posters (for workshop)

Trained working group facilitators

OUTCOMES

Workshop informed by good understanding of DD drivers, range of current programmes/plans, REDD+ gaps, vulnerable stakeholder groups, institutional stakeholder incentives, etc.

Facilitators are able to facilitate working group discussions

1 STAGE

Drivers Analysis Workshop

Steps

D Prioritisation of DD drivers and barriers to plus activities

E Practice problem tree

F Problem trees

OUTPUTS

List of prioritised drivers and other key challenges for REDD+

Problem trees of priority drivers and other key challenges (on flipchart sheets)

OUTCOMES

Participants achieve a strong cause and effect understanding of the drivers and other challenges for REDD+, thereby obtaining a sound basis for identifying strategic interventions

iii

2STAGE

Interventions Analysis Workshop

Steps

G Practice results chain

H Results chains

I Theory of change statements

J Feasibility analysis and threat reduction measures

OUTPUTS

Results chains in response to drivers (on flipchart sheets)

Theory of change statements for each results chain

List of prioritised threat reduction measures

OUTCOMES

Strategic set of interventions and theories of change for a successful REDD+

Robust understanding of main threats to a successful REDD+, and how to reduce these threats

3STAGE

Safeguards Analysis Workshop

Steps

K Transmission channels analysis (TCA) (consultancy)

L Social risks/benefits analysis

M Environmental risks/benefits analysis

OUTPUTS

TCA matrix showing direct and indirect social effects of proposed REDD+ policy measures

List of priority social and environmental risks and benefits

List of social and environmental risk reduction and benefit enhancement measures

OUTCOMES

Understanding of potential trade-offs and how to reduce them and/or enhance synergies between multiple objectives

Information sent to national REDD+ Safeguards Information System

iv

4STAGE

Monitoring Plan Workshop

Steps

N Indicators and monitoring plans for REDD+ results chains

O Indicators and monitoring plans for mitigating social and environmental risks

P Reporting protocol for PSP monitoring system

OUTPUTS

Set of indicators and monitoring plan to assess progress of REDD+ in achieving its objectives

Social and environmental indicators and monitoring plans

PSP reporting protocol

OUTCOMES

Capacity to monitor progress of REDD+ and inform adaptive management, including progress in mitigating social and environmental risks or threats, and enhancing multiple benefits

Information sent to Safeguards Information System, and subnational REDD+ programme considered eligible to receive REDD+ payments

5STAGE

Reporting & socialising results

Steps

Q Technical report, briefing paper and workshop presentation

OUTPUTS

Full technical report

Briefing paper

Workshop presentation

OUTCOMES

REDD+ decision makers informed of strategies for achieving multiple benefit objectives and minimising trade-offs

v

ContentsExecutive Summary i

List of figures and tables vi

Abbreviations vii

Introduction 1

1 Introduction to the core methods of participatory subnational planning 3

1.1 Participatory theory of change 3 1.2 Stakeholder and institutional analysis 4 1.3 Transmission channels analysis 5

2 Step-by-step guidance for participatory subnational planning 7

Stage 0 Preparatory studies and training (steps A-C) 12

Step A Literature review of drivers of deforestation and forest degradation, and barriers to plus activities 12Step B Stakeholder and institutional analysis 13Step C Working group facilitator training 13

Stage 1 Drivers Workshop (steps D-F) 13

Step D Prioritisation of key drivers and barriers to plus activities 13Step E Practice problem tree 15Step F Problem trees 15

Stage 2 Interventions Workshop: (steps G-J) 17

Step G Practice results chain 17Step H Results chains 17Step I Theory of change statements (provisional) 17Step J Feasibility analysis 19

Stage 3 Safeguards Workshop: (steps K-M) 20

Step K Transmission Channels Analysis (consultancy) 20Step L Social risks/benefits analysis 22Step M Environmental risks/benefits analysis 27

Stage 4 Monitoring Workshop: (steps N-P) 27

Step N Indicators and monitoring plans for REDD+ results chains 27Step O Indicators and monitoring plans for mitigating social and environmental risks 28Step P Reporting protocol for the monitoring system 28

Stage 5 Reporting and socialising the findings 29

Step Q Technical report, briefing paper and workshop presentation 29

References 31

Annex 1 Glossary 32

vi

List of figures and tables

Figure 1: Cause-and-effect results chain underlying the theory of change approach 3

Figure 2: Example problem tree from a Zanzibar REDD+ project 16

Figure 3: Example results chain from a Zanzibar REDD+ project 18

Figure 4: Example results chain with threats and threat reduction results from a Zanzibar REDD+ project 21

Table 1: Participatory subnational planning stages, steps, outputs and outcomes 8

Table 2: Matrix for ranking direct drivers of deforestation and forest degradation 14

Table 3: Matrix for ranking plus activities of REDD+ 15

Table 4: Threats, threat reduction measures and threat reduction results from a Zanzibar REDD+ project 20

Table 5: Example transmission channels analysis from a livelihoods impact assessment of Vietnam’s proposed Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Voluntary Partnership Agreement 24

Table 6: Example transmission channels analysis from a livelihood capabilities impact analysis of a biofuels programme in India 26

Table 7: Example indicators and monitoring plan from a Zanzibar REDD+ project 29

vii

Abbreviations

DD deforestation and forest degradation (drivers)

DFID Department for International Development (of United Kingdom)

FLEGT Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (European Union Initiative)

FPIC free, prior and informed consent

M&E monitoring and evaluation

NGO non-governmental organisation

NTFP non-timber forest product

PIAM Participatory Impact Assessment and Monitoring

PSIA Poverty and Social Impact Analysis (of World Bank)

PSP Participatory Subnational Planning

REDD+ reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation; and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries

SBIA Social and Biodiversity Impact Assessment (manual)

SMART specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, time-bound

TCA Transmission Channels Analysis

VPA Voluntary Partnership Agreement

1

IntroductionThis document sets out an approach - participatory subnational planning (PSP) - for national or jurisdictional REDD+ (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation) and other land use programmes, which can facilitate full and effective participation of stakeholders in the planning process. It aims to be a cost-effective approach to subnational REDD+ planning through:

• identifying interventions that will comprise the REDD+ – this will draw on existing technical analysis to address the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation, as well as barriers to sustainable management, forest carbon stock conservation and enhancement.

• reducing or eliminating environmental and social risks - a robust participatory methodology will assess environmental and social risks of the proposed interventions and identify risk reduction measures, as well as benefit enhancement measures, that can help maximise REDD+ multiple benefits3 and minimise trade-offs between carbon, social and environmental objectives.

• informing adaptive management - PSP provides a strong basis for adaptive management, partly due to its capacity to attribute environmental and social impacts.

• complying with safeguards - generating information on how REDD+ safeguards are being addressed and respected will allow subnational REDD+ to demonstrate safeguard compliance, as required for results-based financing under the REDD+ mechanism.

• contributing to sustainable development - the proposed approach will help meet regional and national poverty reduction and environmental plans and objectives.

Applying PSP can contribute more broadly to natural resource management strategies since it:

a. builds in strong participation, thereby increasing stakeholder ownership and transparency and helping apply the principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC)

b. facilitates adaptive management by promoting an iterative and reliable learning process based on a set of monitoring indicators that will show how a programme is progressing towards its objectives

c. strengthens the social and environmental sustainability of natural resource management programmes since it places a strong emphasis on identifying and counteracting social and environmental risks.

The proposed methodology builds on various discussions and sources, especially discussions held within SNV Netherlands Development Organisation in Vietnam, as well as the experience of applying participatory theory of change analysis since 2010 in various countries and natural resource contexts. These include assessing the livelihood impacts of the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs) in Vietnam and Indonesia and social impact assessment of REDD+ projects in Brazil, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, Peru and Tanzania. Key literature sources for the PSP approach are as follows:

3. Multiple benefits include both carbon (emissions reductions and enhanced removals) and non-carbon benefits (biodiversity; ecosystem services; governance; livelihoods; rights; climate change adaptation; etc.).

2

• Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (Conservation Measures Partnership 2007)

• Social and Biodiversity Impact Assessment (SBIA) Manual for REDD+ projects (Richards & Panfil 2011)

• Poverty and Social Impact Analysis (PSIA) toolbox of methods (World Bank 2003, 2012)

• Promoting Pro-Poor Growth. A Practical Guide to Ex-Ante Poverty Impact Assessment (OECD/DAC 2007)

• Methods for Assessing & Evaluating Socioeconomic Impacts in REDD+: A Reference Manual (Lawlor 2013)

• Identifying and Addressing Drivers of Deforestation and Forest Degradation (LEAF 2014).

3

1.1 Participatory theory of change

A recent review of methods for the socio-economic assessment of jurisdictional REDD+ programmes (Lawlor 2013) highlights the potential of two main methodologies: the participatory theory of change approach and Poverty and Social Impact Analysis (PSIA).

A theory of change is a plan or hypothesis of how an intervention such as a REDD+ programme will achieve its intended objectives and goals. All programmes and projects have a theory of change, but this is not always made explicit. As with any theory, there is no guarantee it will work. It is based on a set of cause-and-effect assumptions that the proponents hope will hold true. As indicated in Figure 1, it involves setting out and tracking a set of results chains linking an intervention’s strategies and activities with its outputs, outcomes and impacts.

A recent Department for International Development (of United Kingdom) (DFID) review of the theory of change approach notes that it is used in a wide range of development contexts4 and reported that it “provides the basis for collecting evidence, checking other possible explanations as counterfactuals and presenting a case from which cause can be reasonably inferred and linked back to the programme” (Vogel 2012: 45). In other words, the theory of change method ensures a strong element of attribution – or showing what caused what. This provides it with the methodological credibility5 for impact assessment (ex-ante), monitoring (on-going) and evaluation (ex-post).

4. See for example: http://www.cgiar-ilac.org/content/theory-based-evaluation and http://monitoring.cpwf.info/background/theory-of-change.

5. Showing attribution is the biggest challenge for any kind of impact assessment, monitoring or evaluation (M&E). Theory of change based M&E is a less complex and more participatory approach to attribution than high cost quasi-experimental methods involving statistical comparison of control and treatment groups.

Figure 1: Cause-and-effect results chain underlying the theory of change approach

ACTIVITIES OUTPUTS OUTCOMES IMPACTSSTRATEGY

MEANS END

Section 1Introduction to the core methods of participatory subnational planning

4

The core steps involved in using the participatory theory of change approach are as follows:

1. Selecting the most important key challenges: a key challenge is a major challenge or problem that needs to be overcome by a programme or project for it to be successful. In the context of REDD+, most key challenges will be deforestation and forest degradation (DD) drivers and/or barriers to sustainable forest management, forest carbon stock conservation and enhancement.

2. Undertaking challenges analysis by developing problem trees for each key challenge or DD driver, and which explore the causes of the challenge or DD driver.

3. Developing results chains which map out how to counteract the key challenges and their causes. The results chains contain a set of successfully implemented candidate REDD+ activities or interventions that respond to the DD drivers.

4. Elaborating theory of change statements based on the results chains.

5. Conducting feasibility or threats analysis. This involves assessing what could go wrong with the results chains and prevent the effectiveness of the proposed interventions.

6. Identifying threat reduction measures that respond to these threats or risks to effectiveness. This leads to modifications to the theory of change and candidate REDD+ activities or interventions.

7. Identifying monitoring indicators which will show progress towards achieving the objectives set out in the results chains. In REDD+ terms this means monitoring the interventions.

8. Developing monitoring plans.

It should be noted that the quality of participatory theory of change analysis depends on various factors, particularly:

• how well the qualitative analysis in the participatory workshops is informed through relevant analytical studies conducted by technical specialists, such as spatial analyses (including historical land use change and forward-looking scenario planning), economic valuation of ecosystem services and cost-benefit analyses (including opportunity cost assessments); and,

• the quality of the working group facilitators, including their ability to promote universal participation in the working groups. These facilitators need to be trained in how to use (and how to guide others in using) the participatory theory of change method.

1.2 Stakeholder and institutional analysisPSIA is a toolbox of methods used particularly by the World Bank for policy analysis, including in the context of climate change mitigation (World Bank 2012). Within the PSIA toolbox, the most relevant methods are stakeholder analysis, institutional analysis and transmission channels analysis (TCA).

Stakeholder analysis is universally accepted as the starting point for social analysis. In PSP, the focus of stakeholder analysis is on understanding vulnerable stakeholder groups. Stakeholder analysis must include gender analysis. Institutional analysis in the context of PSP is a type of stakeholder analysis that focuses on the institutions and their incentives to support or oppose REDD+ strategies, based on their perceptions of winners and losers or distributional affects. It aims to answer such questions as:

5

• what are the likely changes in formal institutions due to REDD+, such as changes in laws and regulations, including land and tree tenure, decentralised power and authorisation procedures, and the consequences of these changes?

• what are the likely changes in informal or soft institutions, such as power relations and customary rights, and the consequences of these changes?

• how might these changes affect REDD+ outcomes, especially as regards equity? How will they affect the incentives driving institutional support for, or opposed to, REDD+ implementation?

1.3 Transmission channels analysis This is the most important tool in the World Bank PSIA toolbox (World Bank 2003, 2012). Transmission channels are pathways through which a policy can affect vulnerable stakeholder groups. There are six primary transmission channels:

1. Prices: changes in producer and retailer prices, salaries and other costs

2. Employment: changes in jobs or employment, including informal or self-employment

3. Transfers and taxes: transfers between stakeholders (including government), e.g. changes in forest fees or in the use of government revenue

4. Access to goods & services: e.g. provision of a road changes market access; a new source of institutional credit changes access to finance, etc.

5. Authority or power: changes in formal and informal power relations, tenure, rights, etc.

6. Livelihood assets: changes in human, physical, social, financial or natural assets.6

The first task in TCA is to identify which transmission channels have changed due to an intervention (e.g. a policy that restricts extraction of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) that are locally marketed could increase local NTFP prices). A second task is to identify who will be affected and how, e.g. reduced income for women collecting NTFPs and higher costs for local households consuming the NTFPs. These are the direct effects.

It is then possible to predict some indirect effects which result from knock-on changes in stakeholder behaviour, for example, higher household expenditure if households switch from previously harvested NTFPs to equivalent purchased items. This could in turn increase incomes of farmers producing a domesticated or planted source of the NTFP. Another example could be when the REDD+ strategy prohibits farming in protected or encroached forest areas, possibly resulting in increased local crop and food prices (direct effects), and thence increased deforestation pressures and leakage due to the increased profitability of growing these crops (indirect effect). Such effects might have a temporal dimension: higher food prices may stimulate food production in the short-term until increased supply returns prices to their former equilibrium level.

TCA is a widely used tool and has been applied in most countries, often in the context of climate change mitigation or adaptation. For example, in Vietnam, a recent TCA conducted by the World Bank was oriented to improving the Government of Vietnam’s understanding

6. As defined in the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) approach.

6

of how proposed policy reforms to address climate change would affect vulnerable stakeholder groups and how they might be modified to contribute to building the climate change adaptation capacity or resilience of the poor (World Bank 2011, 2012).

7

The PSP approach is composed of various methods such as those described in Section 1. PSP tailors these methods and packages into a cost-effective multi-stakeholder process to identify the constituent interventions, and associated risks, that are at the core of subnational REDD+, or indeed, of any other natural resource planning process. It involves a systematic analysis of a programme’s theory of change, including its underlying assumptions. Through cause and effect analysis of the main challenges, especially the DD drivers, and appropriately informed by technical studies, this approach should result in a strategic and participatory subnational REDD+ programme design.

The proposed methodology comprises five main stages (one preparatory stage and four workshops), which can be broken down into 17 steps (A-Q). These are summarised in Table 1 together with the key outputs and outcomes that can be expected from the steps and workshops. Except for the preparatory studies in Stage 0, the steps are conducted in four multiple stakeholder workshops, each of about two days’ duration:

0 Preparatory studies and training

1 Drivers Workshop

2 Interventions Workshop

3 Safeguards Workshop

4 Monitoring Plan Workshop

Section 2Step-by-step guidance for participatory subnational planning

8

Table 1: Participatory subnational planning stages, steps, outputs and outcomes

0STAGE

Preparatory studies & training

Steps

A Literature review including collation of data on deforestation and forest degradation (DD) drivers and other carbon related data

B Stakeholder and institutional analysis

C Working group facilitator training

OUTPUTS

Report with collated data on DD drivers and barriers to increased REDD+ actions, and poster(s) for use in workshops

Summary of provincial land use programs/investments/ plans and key gaps in the light of REDD+

Stakeholder/institutional analysis report & posters (for workshop)

Trained working group facilitators

OUTCOMES

Workshop informed by good understanding of DD drivers, range of current programmes/plans, REDD+ gaps, vulnerable stakeholder groups, institutional stakeholder incentives, etc.

Facilitators are able to facilitate working group discussions

1 STAGE

Drivers Analysis Workshop

Steps

D Prioritisation of DD drivers and barriers to plus activities

E Practice problem tree

F Problem trees

OUTPUTS

List of prioritised drivers and other key challenges for REDD+

Problem trees of priority drivers and other key challenges (on flipchart sheets)

OUTCOMES

Participants achieve a strong cause and effect understanding of the drivers and other challenges for REDD+, thereby obtaining a sound basis for identifying strategic interventions

9

2STAGE

Interventions Analysis Workshop

Steps

G Practice results chain

H Results chains

I Theory of change statements

J Feasibility analysis and threat reduction measures

OUTPUTS

Results chains in response to drivers (on flipchart sheets)

Theory of change statements for each results chain

List of prioritised threat reduction measures

OUTCOMES

Strategic set of interventions and theories of change for a successful REDD+

Robust understanding of main threats to a successful REDD+, and how to reduce these threats

3STAGE

Safeguards Analysis Workshop

Steps

K Transmission channels analysis (TCA) (consultancy)

L Social risks/benefits analysis

M Environmental risks/benefits analysis

OUTPUTS

TCA matrix showing direct and indirect social effects of proposed REDD+ policy measures

List of priority social and environmental risks and benefits

List of social and environmental risk reduction and benefit enhancement measures

OUTCOMES

Understanding of potential trade-offs and how to reduce them and/or enhance synergies between multiple objectives

Information sent to national REDD+ Safeguards Information System

10

4STAGE

Monitoring Plan Workshop

Steps

N Indicators and monitoring plans for REDD+ results chains

O Indicators and monitoring plans for mitigating social and environmental risks

P Reporting protocol for PSP monitoring system

OUTPUTS

Set of indicators and monitoring plan to assess progress of REDD+ in achieving its objectives

Social and environmental indicators and monitoring plans

PSP reporting protocol

OUTCOMES

Capacity to monitor progress of REDD+ and inform adaptive management, including progress in mitigating social and environmental risks or threats, and enhancing multiple benefits

Information sent to Safeguards Information System, and subnational REDD+ programme considered eligible to receive REDD+ payments

5STAGE

Reporting & socialising results

Steps

Q Technical report, briefing paper and workshop presentation

OUTPUTS

Full technical report

Briefing paper

Workshop presentation

OUTCOMES

REDD+ decision makers informed of strategies for achieving multiple benefit objectives and minimising trade-offs

11

12

For workshops I-III, a sensible target number of participants is 30 people; the same stakeholder participants, as far as is possible, should attend the first three workshops. The final Monitoring Plan Workshop requires only half this number of participants.

The selection of workshop stakeholder participants is critical to the validity and quality of the outcomes. We have mentioned that 30 is a manageable number given the workshop methods and dynamics. With this number, it cannot be claimed that these workshops are fully representative as regards the full range of stakeholders, or that there will be a perfect balance between the stakeholders. There is no magic formula for defining the participant mix, but it is a matter of finding an acceptable balance between the following criteria:

• Representativeness of different stakeholder groups, including some representatives of vulnerable stakeholder groups

• Ensuring strong participation of the planners or policy makers

• Educational capacity of participants to participate effectively in a process that relies heavily on the written word

• Capacity or knowledge of the issues – for assessing social and environmental issues this may mean inviting academics, consultants or others with specialist knowledge

• Achieving an reasonable gender balance, especially for the Safeguards’ Workshop, in which an all-women working group is strongly recommended

The invitation list clearly needs to be drawn up in consultation with the main institutional stakeholders of the subnational REDD+ planning process.

It is possible for the workshops to be undertaken over a one- to two-month timeframe (slightly longer if TCA is required prior to the Safeguards Workshop). Allowing for the pre-workshop analytical studies (Stage 0) and report writing, three to four months is realistic for the whole process.

0STAGE

Preparatory studies and training (steps A-C)The main aim of the three pre-workshop steps (A-C) is to ensure that the multiple stakeholder workshops are well informed. For this to happen, it is vital that the main findings of each study are presented in an accessible and visible form, such as posters.7

Step A. Literature review of drivers of deforestation and forest degradation, and barriers to plus activities

The first step is collation and presentation of information on DD drivers by a consultant who will ideally be a member of the core PSP team. Useful guidance for this can be found in LEAF (2014). This suggests the following steps:

1. Review historical levels of deforestation and forest degradation

2. Review the geographic areas where deforestation and forest degradation have mainly occurred in the recent past, as well as land use change following deforestation (the areas corresponding to the DD drivers should be marked on a map to be included on the poster)

7. In the pilot application of PSP in Binh Thuan Province, Vietnam, it was found that poster presentations maintained participant interest far more than PowerPoint presentations, and proved to be interactive – participants provided significant feedback which was captured in the margins of the posters or on flipcharts or whiteboards placed beside the posters.

13

3. In the high deforestation/forest degradation areas, review the main driving factors or predisposing conditions that encourage deforestation and/or forest degradation to occur8

4. Identify the actors associated with the DD drivers (e.g. rubber plantation companies, coffee farmers, etc.).

In addition to spatial analysis of the DD drivers, forest quality and land use change, the consultant should review economic, technological and political barriers to (and potential for) widespread adoption of the plus actions of REDD+, that is, sustainable management of forests and forest carbon stock conservation and enhancement, either through forest landscape restoration or afforestation/reforestation, including in the form of agroforestry.

Step B. Stakeholder and institutional analysis

A provisional stakeholder analysis should be conducted by a consultant(s) who will participate in the PSP workshops. This can be based mainly on secondary data supplemented by key informant interviews. The main tasks are to classify and describe stakeholder groups and sub-groups, especially women, and assess their vulnerability in the current or pre-REDD+ situation. Most effort should be placed on understanding and describing vulnerable stakeholder groups, e.g. female-headed households. The consultant should also collate wider baseline socio-economic data on forest-based livelihoods, tenure, local institutions, etc.

As noted in Section 1.2, institutional analysis is an extension of stakeholder analysis. It involves describing the

institutional stakeholders, their inter-relationships, interests and incentives. In other words this is about considering changes in the roles and influence of institutions due to the REDD+ programme and how this could cause them to support or oppose effective implementation of REDD+ interventions. As with the literature review, interactive poster presentations are strongly recommended.

Step C. Working group facilitator training

The quality of working group facilitators is a key determinant of the quality of the participation and outputs. They therefore need to be very carefully selected and trained in how to maximise participation of the working groups.

1 STAGE

Drivers Workshop (steps D-F)The Drivers Workshop focuses on achieving a robust diagnostic understanding of the main or key challenges that need to be overcome. Developing robust theories of change for the REDD+ programme depends on obtaining a strong cause and effect understanding of the challenges.

Step D. Prioritisation of key drivers and barriers to plus activities

In PSP, most of the key challenges will be DD drivers and/or barriers to plus activities of REDD+, since these are the main problems or challenges that a REDD+ must overcome. Significant DD drivers were analysed in Step A. These

8. Methods suggested for identifying significant drivers include surveys of households and communities in deforestation areas, participatory rural appraisals, expert interviews, remote sensing analysis, literature review and the analysis of national statistical information (LEAF 2014).

14

need to be ranked in importance by the participants since it is not possible (with the approach described here) to undertake a participatory in-depth analysis of all drivers. Assuming there are 30 workshop participants and that each working group should be five to seven people (based on previous experience with these methods), five working groups are feasible. Based on the pilot PSP application in Vietnam, following the interactive poster presentations, workshop participants can be divided into three groups in order to prioritise the DD drivers and plus activities. Using a pre-prepared DD drivers’ scoring form (Table 2), participants can be encouraged to arrive at a consensus score (or if this is not possible, individual scores can be averaged) of three criteria:

1. the future threat level (next 10-15 years) due to the driver

2. the quality of the forest (as a proxy for carbon density) being lost or degraded due to the driver

3. the scale or area of deforestation or degradation involved.

Scoring can be from 0-10 with 10 representing the highest level of threat, forest quality and area for the three criteria. Scores from the three groups can be added together to get a total score for each driver. These scores provide the basis for a plenary discussion and ultimately selection of the priority DD drivers for in-depth analysis.

A similar process can take place for selecting priority plus activities for in-depth analysis. This should be based on a combination of the carbon (CO

2

removal) potential and the challenges to implementing plus activities. Participants could then score plus activities using the form proposed in Table 3.

Table 2: Matrix for ranking direct drivers of deforestation and forest degradation

Name of DD driver (direct cause)

Future threat level score

Forest quality (biomass density) affected score

Area impacted score

Total score per driver

1.

2

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

15

Table 3: Matrix for ranking plus activities of REDD+

Plus activity Potential area for plus option

Economic difficulty of plus activity

Total score for plus activity

Conservation of forest carbon stocks

Sustainable management of forests

Afforestation

Reforestation

Forest landscape restoration

Assuming a maximum of five working groups, this process would allow the selection of three or four high priority DD drivers and one or two plus activities. The working groups can then be formed mainly by self-selection while trying to ensure that there i s only one representative of an institution or stakeholder group in each working group, as well as a reasonable gender balance.

Step E. Practice problem treeExperience shows that it is essential to undertake a practice activity when a new method is used. This reduces cognitive overload which happens when people are trying to both understand a new method and implement it at the same time. The practice exercise allows participants to concentrate on understanding the new concepts without having to worry about the results.9 The practice exercise can be of an everyday problem unrelated to the REDD+ and decided on by the working group (e.g. rubbish on the streets, youth delinquency, etc.). It should take no more than 40 minutes.

Step F. Problem trees

Each working group will develop a problem tree of its driver or key challenge. This should be strongly informed by the analysis of DD drivers and other carbon scenario planning

work. It involves an initial brainstorm of all causes, both direct and indirect or underlying, of the challenge. The cards are then placed into cause and effect order using a right to left hand logic, as in the example presented in Figure 2. This is taken from a participatory theory of change analysis of a proposed REDD+ project for the island of Zanzibar, Tanzania.10 In this analysis a prominent deforestation driver was slash and burn agriculture associated with rural household poverty or low agricultural income.

It should be noted that each box should have one or more causal factors leading into it unless it is an underlying cause (e.g. fast population growth in Figure 2). It can take time to sort out the ordering of causes and effects. When agreement has been reached, the immediate or direct causal factors (of the key challenge) can be changed from brown to pink cards and arrows can be drawn in – but only in pencil at this point since the flow diagram can change significantly following the working group exchange exercise.

The purpose of the working group exchange is to validate and improve the problem tree. It involves an exchange between two working groups in which the facilitators stay behind to explain

9. It is well established that people learn best about a new concept or method by trying to use or apply it and tend to learn much less when they are in a passive learning mode (e.g. listening to a PowerPoint presentation). Understanding a method through practice before attempting to apply it for real will make the real exercise faster and produce a higher quality output, since the quality of participation will be better.

10. Due to a lack of programmatic examples of participatory theory of change methods being applied to programmatic REDD+, this draft methodology draws an example from project-level REDD+. This REDD+ project was for the island of Zanzibar, which has some governance autonomy and thus is able to introduce policy measures, so that there are some similarities to a sub-national jurisdictional REDD+ programme. In this example the term focal issue in the legend is equivalent to key challenge or driver in PSP.

16

Fig

ure

2: E

xa

mp

le p

rob

lem

tre

e f

rom

a Z

an

zib

ar

RE

DD

+ p

roje

ct

Wea

k co

mm

unity

deci

sion

-mak

ing

and

actio

nPo

or e

duca

tion

Low

ski

lled

labo

ur fo

rce

Low

inco

me

Food

inse

curit

y

Poor

farm

ing

prac

tices

Cap

acity

build

ing

Glo

balis

atio

n of

gend

er e

quity

issu

es

Tour

ism

ser

vice

sby

com

mun

itygr

oups

Zanz

ibar

pov

erty

redu

ctio

nst

rate

gy

Wea

k av

aila

bilit

yan

d us

e of

tech

nolo

gy

Trad

ition

alge

nder

div

isio

nof

labo

ur

Low

leve

ls o

fdi

vers

ifica

tion

Mar

ket f

orce

s

Lack

of

med

ical

car

e

Illne

sses

Fast

pop

ulat

ion

grow

thEn

viro

nmen

tal

degr

adat

ion

Shor

tage

of

land

Low

prod

uctiv

ity

Fam

ilypl

anni

ng

Wea

k go

vern

ance

Pove

rty

Pilo

ting

RED

D in

Zanz

ibar

:Pe

mba

and

Ung

uja

Isla

nd

Con

trib

utin

g fa

ctor

sPr

ojec

t opp

ortu

nity

Dire

ct th

reat

Foca

l iss

uePr

ojec

t sco

pe

Lege

nd

17

the problem tree to the visitors from the other working group. The latter should critique the problem tree and make suggestions for improving it. Then the original working group should re-form and decide what modifications are needed. After this the arrows can be inked in.

The final activity in the Drivers Workshop is a museum visit in which the stakeholder participants have the opportunity to listen to presentations of all the problem trees. Based on the pilot application in Vietnam, it is suggested that working group facilitators remain at their working group station and provide a continuous explanation to visitors, who are free to visit any working group station and stay for as short or as long a time as they wish over about 30-40 minutes.

2STAGE

Interventions Workshop: (steps G-J)The main tasks in the Interventions Workshop are to develop results chains for each driver or key challenge, assess the feasibility of implementing the identified interventions, particularly by assessing the threats to effective implementation, and identify threat reduction or mitigation measures.

Step G. Practice results chainUsing the same practice example (as in Step E), participants should develop a practice results chain (maximum time 40 minutes).

Step H. Results chains

The working groups will then develop results or interventions chains of their drivers or key challenges. Figure 3 presents an example of a results chain from the Zanzibar REDD+ project case study. This method is similar to

developing a problem tree. The aim of the results chain is to reverse the negative causal factors identified in the problem tree, but it will not be the exact opposite of the problem tree; the focus is on the changes needed for achieving positive results, and different kinds of actions and strategies are normally introduced.

During results chain development, group facilitators should bear in mind that effective responses to DD drivers are likely to do one or more of the following (LEAF 2014):

• Encourage more positive stakeholder behaviour to sustainable resource use or management

• Discourage stakeholders from unsustainable resource practices

• Help develop enabling conditions for sustainable natural resource management

All the components or boxes in a results chain should be expressed as results achieved and not as proposed activities, e.g. farm productivity increased, not increase farm productivity. Blue cards are used for the brainstorm of results. As with Step F, there should be an exchange of working groups resulting in validation and improvement of the results chain.

Step I. Theory of change statements (provisional)

At this point the working group should develop a provisional theory of change statement that captures the essence of the results chain. It is provisional because it may change after the risks analysis (Step M). It is expressed in the form of an IF ... THEN statement. For example, one of the theory of change statements developed in the Zanzibar REDD+ project case study was:

18

Fig

ure

3: E

xa

mp

le r

esu

lts

cha

in f

rom

a Z

an

zib

ar

RE

DD

+ p

roje

ct

Pove

rty

redu

ctio

n

Iden

tifica

tion

ofvu

lner

able

grou

ps

Farm

er c

apac

itybu

ildin

g ac

tions

Sust

aina

ble

farm

ing

prac

ties

empl

oyed

Incr

ease

d fa

rmpr

oduc

tivity

Food

sec

urity

Su�

cien

t inc

ome

Farm

ers

unde

rsta

ndbe

nefit

s of

sust

aina

ble

prac

tices

Mar

gina

l gro

ups

empo

wer

ed to

mak

e an

dim

plem

ent

deci

sion

s

Targ

eted

pove

rty

stra

tegi

es

Avai

labl

e an

dsu

�ci

ent

reso

urce

s

Farm

ers

supp

ort

villa

geco

mm

ittee

s

Inte

grat

edm

anag

emen

tpl

an

Redu

ctio

n of

envi

ronm

enta

lde

grad

atio

n

Nee

dsas

sess

men

t for

sust

aina

ble

farm

ing

syst

ems

Proj

ect s

trat

egy

Inte

rmed

iate

res

ult

(con

trib

utin

g fa

ctor

)D

irect

res

ult

(on

a di

rect

thre

at)

Foca

l iss

uePr

ojec

t sco

pe

Lege

nd

Pove

rty

Pilo

ting

RED

D in

Zanz

ibar

:Pe

mba

and

Ung

uja

Isla

nd

19

”IF marginal groups are empowered and comprehensive land use planning is conducted and sustainable farming practices are employed and markets are accessible, THEN increased productivity will lead to alleviation of poverty without environmental degradation.”

The theory of change statement should be short and succinct; a key benefit of this step is that it forces the working group to prioritise the most important linkages in the results chain. This facilitates steps J-O which require prioritisation of the most important results or interventions.

Step J. Feasibility analysis

The next task is to assess the feasibility of the results chains by analysing threats to successful implementation of the interventions. For this exercise, the working groups should swap so that they work on a different key challenge or driver to the one they have worked on to this point. Thus, the visitor working group in the group exchanges undertakes the feasibility analysis. This increases objectivity: it is easier for a different group of people to find problems with a results chain than the group that developed it. Two main types of threat can be identified:

• Internal threats – these are threats that are internal to, or strongly associated with, REDD+ design and implementation, e.g. opposition from negatively impacted stakeholders, lack of political will, weak implementation capacity, poor governance, etc.

• External threats - these are threats that come from outside the REDD+ programme’s design and implementation, for example, the threat of a macro-level financial or social breakdown.

Internal threats are most common, especially when a REDD+ strategy or intervention challenges vested interest groups and/or is complex and costly to implement. But such interventions can also have high potential for multiple benefits. Therefore, stakeholder participants need to balance the potential of an intervention to change underlying incentives for sustainable (or unsustainable) land use, and the political or governance expediency of the intervention - a balancing act in which feasibility analysis can play a vital role. Table 4 presents some threats identified in the Zanzibar REDD+ project case study.

The next task for the working group is to analyse the relative significance of a threat based on its likelihood or probability (high, medium or low), and, if it does happen, the magnitude of the negative effect (high, medium, low). A serious threat can be defined as having at least a medium likelihood of it happening, and if it does happen, at least a medium level impact.

The final activities in the feasibility analysis are: a) for the working group to identify threat reduction measures for each serious threat; and b) to express threat reduction measures as results, since they need to be added to the results chain (see Table 4 and Figure 4). The theory of change statement can also be modified if it is felt necessary to add a threat reduction result as a vital part of the theory of change.

As for the Drivers Workshop, the last activity in the Interventions Workshop is a museum visit so that all workshop participants have the opportunity to see and hear what the other working groups have been doing.

20

3STAGE

Safeguards Workshop: (steps K-M)

Having achieved a provisional REDD+ design, including threat reduction measures, the focus switches to analysing potential social and environmental risks and benefits associated with the proposed REDD+ interventions. In view of the need to undertake transmissions channels analysis on the policy type interventions (Step K), there will be a gap in time between the Interventions Workshop and the Safeguards Workshop. The main tasks of the Safeguards Workshop are to identify potential social and environmental risks and benefits of the provisional REDD+ design and how to reduce the risks and enhance potential benefits. This will also reveal trade-offs and/or synergies between carbon, social and environmental objectives.

Step K. Transmission Channels Analysis (consultancy)

For each policy-type intervention, TCA (see Section 1.3) is required. The nature of TCA is such that it requires consultants to undertake it. This is because policy type measures often have complex indirect effects. REDD+ programmes should include several policy-like measures in response to the national (and possibly subnational) policy failures that are often at the root of DD drivers.

While this increases the cost of PSP, once a TCA of a policy measure has been undertaken it should be possible to use it in other PSP applications, since other areas are likely to have the same policy failures and thus policy responses. For example, Vietnam’s REDD+ Readiness Proposal (R-PP) lists the main direct drivers as:

a. land conversion to agriculture, especially rubber, coffee and cashew

b. land conversion for infrastructure construction

c. logging (especially illegal logging)

d. forest fires

Table 4: Threats, threat reduction measures and threat reduction results from a Zanzibar REDD+ project

Threats Threat reduction measures Threat reduction results

Marginal groups left out Incorporating farming needs assessment and identification of vulnerable groups

All vulnerable groups included in planning of farmer capacity building

Input needs not properly assessed

Capacity building in quality and sustainability of production

Inappropriate strategies due to weak analysis of gaps and priorities of vulnerable groups

Prior to strategy development, identifying gaps together with vulnerable groups

Poverty analysis of vulnerable groups undertaken and incorporated in strategies

Biased land use plan leads to further marginalisation and degradation

Involvement of other community groups into planning process

Marginal groups empowered to make and implement decisions

Fall in price from over-supply leading to abandonment of new farm practices

Market research and planning Market analysis and marketing plan implemented

21

Fig

ure

4: E

xa

mp

le r

esu

lts

cha

in w

ith

th

rea

ts a

nd

th

rea

t re

du

ctio

n r

esu

lts

fr

om

a Z

an

zib

ar

RE

DD

+ p

roje

ct11

Proj

ect s

trat

egy

Inte

rmed

iate

res

ult

(con

trib

utin

g fa

ctor

)D

irect

res

ult

(on

a di

rect

thre

at)

Foca

l iss

uePr

ojec

t sco

pePo

tent

ial r

isk

orne

gativ

e im

pact

Miti

gatio

n re

sult

for

risk

or n

egat

ive

impa

ct

Lege

nd

Pove

rty

redu

ctio

n

Iden

tifica

tion

ofvu

lner

able

grou

ps

Farm

er c

apac

itybu

ildin

g ac

tions

Farm

er c

apac

itybu

ildin

g ac

tions

Inte

grat

edm

anag

emen

tpl

an

Avai

labl

ean

d su

�ci

ent

reso

urce

s

Mar

gina

l gro

ups

empo

wer

ed to

mak

e an

dim

plem

ent

deci

sion

s

Incr

ease

d fa

rmpr

oduc

tivity

Mar

ket a

naly

sis

and

mar

ketin

gpl

an im

plem

ente

d

Fall

in p

rice

from

over

-sup

ply

lead

ing

toab

ando

nmen

tof

new

farm

prac

tices

Redu

ced

envi

ronm

enta

lde

grad

atio

n

Farm

ers

unde

rsta

ndbe

nefit

s of

sust

aina

ble

prac

tices

Targ

eted

pove

rty

stra

tegi

es

Mar

gina

l gro

ups

left

out

All

vuln

erab

legr

oups

incl

uded

in p

lann

ing

offa

rmer

cap

acity

build

ing

Pove

rty

anal

ysis

of v

ulne

rabl

egr

oups

unde

rtak

enan

d ic

orpo

rate

din

str

ateg

ies

Nee

dsas

sess

men

t for

sust

aina

ble

farm

ing

syst

ems

Sust

aina

ble

farm

ing

prac

tices

empl

oyed

Inap

prop

riate

stra

tegi

es d

ueto

wea

k an

alys

isof

gap

s an

dpr

iorit

ies

ofvu

lner

able

gro

ups

Food

sec

urity

Su�

cien

t inc

ome

Pove

rty

Pilo

ting

RED

D in

Zanz

ibar

:Pe

mba

and

Ung

uja

Isla

nd

11. In the legend in Figure 4, ”Potential risk or negative impact” has the same meaning as potential threat, and “Mitigation result for risk or negative impact” means the same as threat reduction result.

22

Except for forest fires, these were also the most important drivers identified by stakeholders in a pilot application of PSP in Binh Thuan province, southern Vietnam. Therefore, each time a PSP is undertaken, the number of TCA studies required, and thus the cost of doing a PSP, will fall. This also highlights the need for institutional coordination of PSPs.

For each policy-like intervention, the consultant(s) selected to undertake TCA should:

1. identify likely changes (due to the policy like intervention) of the six transmission channels

2. list the stakeholder groups that are likely to be positively or negatively affected by the direct effects of changes in each transmission channel (prices, employment, etc.)

3. assess the magnitude of the likely effect on each stakeholder group in the short and medium/long term. A simple scoring system can be used to indicate how positively (+, ++ or +++) or negatively (-, -- or ---) stakeholder groups could be affected

4. identify second round or indirect effects stemming from predicted behavioural changes of the affected stakeholder groups (e.g. increased encroachment of unprotected forest areas) - these second round effects may be environmental or social or both.

Whether a policy change will affect a vulnerable stakeholder group through a change in a transmissions channel is not always obvious. For example, a REDD+ strategy that significantly reduces farming in encroached forest areas, could increase local food prices (due to reduced supply). At least in the short term this would benefit commercial farmers while raising food costs of non-farm households, possibly increasing

the pressure on unprotected forest, both due to the displacement effect and the increased profitability of food crops (at least in the short-term).

Table 5 presents an example of a TCA of the effects of Vietnam’s proposed FLEGT VPA on wood processing households in southern Vietnam. This was developed initially by a consultant and then discussed and modified in a multiple stakeholder workshop. An example of an analysis of the secondary or indirect effects of a biofuels programme in India, through assessing livelihood capabilities, is presented in Table 6.

The consultancy report(s) should be discussed by the core PSP team, together with the consultant(s), in a one or two day meeting immediately before the Safeguards Analysis Workshop. This meeting should result in a proposed set of priority social risks and benefit enhancement opportunities associated with the policy measures, to be validated in the Safeguards Workshop. This will require developing accessible presentations of the TCA process and results, for example, in the form of posters.

Step L. Social risks/benefits analysis

The Safeguards Workshop should commence with poster presentations of the stakeholder and institutional analysis (Step B) and the TCA. As well allowing validation of the TCA findings, these presentations will help stakeholder participants identify social risks and benefits associated with the non-policy activities and measures.

The main task of the working groups in Step L is thence to identify potential social risks and benefits of the non-policy (i.e. on-the-ground) interventions, paying attention to negative or positive effects on vulnerable stakeholder groups.

23

24

Table 5: Example transmission channels analysis from a livelihoods impact assessment of Vietnam’s proposed Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Voluntary Partnership Agreement

Transmission channels

Description

Primary impacts

(Direct and short-term impacts)

Secondary impacts

(Indirect and medium-term impacts including changes in stakeholder behaviour in response to policy)

Description Strength Description Strength

Prices and costs Cost of wood used by households

Increase in legally certified wood price - Increased competition between small- and large-scale processing units for legally certified wood

Small-scale units may find it difficult to source certified timber and/or pay for it

-

Transaction costs

Transaction costs increase due to stricter enforcement of regulations (business registration and management, environmental protection, taxation, etc.)

- Reduced revenue - difficult to meet regulations and afford increased transaction costs -

Sale (wood product) prices

Increased prices for higher-value wood products in domestic and export markets

+ Longer term opportunities for successful wood processing units to capitalise on higher market values

+

Employment Informal sector jobs

Potential reduction in jobs as household processing units struggle to adapt to new market conditions

- Reduced incomes and increased vulnerability for workers if weak adaptation. NB: most wood processing workers & households are not poor or eligible for social protection support (e.g. free health insurance)

-

Larger, formal sector households

Stricter application of labour standard (labour code, social and health insurance)

+ More favourable working conditions. +

Access to goods and services

Raw material supplies

Reduced availability of raw material, increased competition between small and larger scale processing units for certified timber supplies

+/- Small-scale processors may find it difficult to source certified timber and adapt to new market conditions

-

Changes in structure of wood processing industry, increased utilisation of composites and alternative plantation species, product diversification

+

Incentive for stronger collaboration with smallholder tree planters to ensure supply +

Incentive to invest in plantations to meet wood production needs +

Authority Regulation Increased role of state, local government authorities and inspection agencies

+/- High transaction costs

Potential for local authorities and inspection agencies to impose illegal fees on households

-

Households become more experienced and capable of fulfilling legal requirements and procedures

+

25

Table 5: Example transmission channels analysis from a livelihoods impact assessment of Vietnam’s proposed Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Voluntary Partnership Agreement

Transmission channels

Description

Primary impacts

(Direct and short-term impacts)

Secondary impacts

(Indirect and medium-term impacts including changes in stakeholder behaviour in response to policy)

Description Strength Description Strength

Prices and costs Cost of wood used by households

Increase in legally certified wood price - Increased competition between small- and large-scale processing units for legally certified wood

Small-scale units may find it difficult to source certified timber and/or pay for it

-

Transaction costs

Transaction costs increase due to stricter enforcement of regulations (business registration and management, environmental protection, taxation, etc.)

- Reduced revenue - difficult to meet regulations and afford increased transaction costs -

Sale (wood product) prices

Increased prices for higher-value wood products in domestic and export markets

+ Longer term opportunities for successful wood processing units to capitalise on higher market values

+

Employment Informal sector jobs

Potential reduction in jobs as household processing units struggle to adapt to new market conditions

- Reduced incomes and increased vulnerability for workers if weak adaptation. NB: most wood processing workers & households are not poor or eligible for social protection support (e.g. free health insurance)

-

Larger, formal sector households

Stricter application of labour standard (labour code, social and health insurance)

+ More favourable working conditions. +

Access to goods and services

Raw material supplies

Reduced availability of raw material, increased competition between small and larger scale processing units for certified timber supplies

+/- Small-scale processors may find it difficult to source certified timber and adapt to new market conditions

-

Changes in structure of wood processing industry, increased utilisation of composites and alternative plantation species, product diversification

+

Incentive for stronger collaboration with smallholder tree planters to ensure supply +

Incentive to invest in plantations to meet wood production needs +

Authority Regulation Increased role of state, local government authorities and inspection agencies

+/- High transaction costs

Potential for local authorities and inspection agencies to impose illegal fees on households

-

Households become more experienced and capable of fulfilling legal requirements and procedures

+

26

The results chains from the Interventions Workshop will mainly reflect the carbon objectives of the REDD+ programme. Therefore, the social risks can be regarded as negative side-effects or trade-offs from the carbon objectives. Red cards can be used for social risks and green cards for social benefits. These can be placed at relevant points on the result chain flow diagrams. If there is time there should then be a group exchange to validate and refine the group work as in the previous workshops.

The risks and benefits identified on the results chains can then be transcribed onto two flipchart sheets, one for social risks and one for social benefits. For the social risks sheet, information can be entered in six columns as follows:

• Column 1: name of results box associated with the identified social risk

• Column 2: name or description of the social risk

• Column 3: vulnerable stakeholder group(s) most affected

Table 6: Example transmission channels analysis from a livelihood capabilities impact analysis of a biofuels programme in India

Capabilities Economic Security Human Socio-cultural Political

Stakeholders Short term (+/-)

Med. term (+/-)

Short term (+/-)

Med. term (+/-)

Short term (+/-)

Med. term (+/-)

Short Term (+/-)

Med. term (+/-)

Short term (+/-)

Med. term (+/-)

Poor target groups:

Landowning poor

+ + + + 0 + 0 + 0 0

Landless poor

+ + 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0

Women (married, poor)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Women (single headed households)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other stakeholders:

Self-help groups

+ ++ 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 +

Wealthier landowning households

++ ++ 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0

Key: Strength/direction of impact

++

Very positive

+

Positive

0

Not significant

-

Negative

- -

Very negative

Source: OECD, 2007, p.63

27

• Column 4: likelihood of the social risk happening – high, medium or low

• Column 5: magnitude of the impact of the risk if it does happen – high medium or low

• Column 6: for risks with at least a medium likelihood of happening and at least a medium level of impact (if it does happen), risk reduction measures should be identified, especially measures that would help vulnerable stakeholder groups

A social benefits sheet can be compiled in exactly the same way, with column 6 listing potential social benefit enhancement measures, e.g. opportunities for pro-poor or gender equity benefits.

Step M. Environmental risks/benefits analysis

The same process as Step L can be used for environmental risks and benefits. Red cards can be used for environmental risks and green cards for environmental benefits. This will result in an environmental risks sheet, with a proposed set of environmental risk reduction or mitigation measures in the final column, and an environmental benefits sheet with a set of proposed environmental benefit enhancement measures.

4STAGE

Monitoring Workshop: (steps N-P)

The PSP Monitoring Workshop can be cost-effectively undertaken with a sub-group of 10-15 workshop participants such as higher capacity civil servants, technical specialists, university researchers, etc.

Experience shows that it is easier to identify the indicators and monitoring plan in a smaller workshop since:

• this exercise is quite technical and can be difficult for stakeholders who are unfamiliar with monitoring and evaluation concepts

• there is less need for representative stakeholder participation in defining the indicators and monitoring plan than in the previous stages

The outputs will be two sets of indicators and monitoring plans12 that aim to:

• measure progress towards achieving the objectives of the REDD+ results chains

• measure progress in combating social and environmental risks, and enhancing social and environmental benefits.

Step N. Indicators and monitoring plans for REDD+ results chains

In order to identify monitoring indicators, it is necessary to define objectives. These should be, as far as possible, specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and time-bound (SMART). There should be an objective for each prioritised result in the results chain. Reference can be made to the theory of change statement to help select the most important results; a further clue is a results box (in the results chain) with several arrows entering or leaving it – this indicates that it is likely to be a key result in the results chain or theory of change. There is insufficient time and resources to collect monitoring data for all the results in the results chain.

It is recommended that four to six results are selected from each results chain, ideally including results that appear both

12. In addition to these two sets of monitoring plans, the planners might be encouraged to identify a third set of indicators and monitoring plans – ones that aim to detect negative social and environmental impacts. This would facilitate adaptive management by identifying the need for taking remedial measures and preventing a situation from getting worse. The indicators could be derived from the problem trees, the TCA or the analysis of social and environmental risks.

28

earlier (outputs or outcomes) and later (outcomes or impacts13) in the chain. Thence, for each SMART objective, one or two indicators can be identified. An indicator is something that can be measured to show progress towards achieving an objective. A common error is to try and identify SMART indicators, but only the objectives should be SMART. It is relatively easy to identify an indicator if an objective is well defined.

Table 7 provides an example of a monitoring plan, again from the Zanzibar REDD+ project. The first two columns contain the SMART objectives and indicators. The remaining columns involve compiling the following information for each indicator:

• Whether data already exists for the indicator

• Data collection method(s) for the indicator

• Who should collect the data

• When or how often the data needs to be collected

• Where it should be collected

• A rough idea of the cost of data collection (high, medium or low)

• Other likely influences on the indicator (this was not done for the Zanzibar REDD+ project example)

The final bullet point needs explaining. This is for noting other (non-REDD+) influences or factors that might be expected to influence the indicator. This helps assess attribution, since it can help reach a judgement of how much of a change in an indicator should be attributed to the REDD+ programme as opposed to other factors or influences, for example, non-governmental organisation (NGO) projects or government programmes operating in the same area.14

Step O. Indicators and monitoring plans for mitigating social and environmental risks

A similar process is needed for identifying monitoring indicators for the social and environmental mitigation measures identified in Steps L and M. Similarly to Step N, a SMART objective and indicators need to be identified for each priority mitigation measure, and then the monitoring plan (for each key challenge) can be completed as shown in Table 7.

Step P. Reporting protocol for the monitoring system

The final task of the Monitoring Workshop is to develop a plan for processing, analysing and reporting the PSP monitoring data. The plan should establish clear institutional responsibilities that recognise the very strong links between monitoring and adaptive management of the REDD+. The reporting protocol also needs to specify the frequency of reporting, the reporting format, etc.

13. There is a natural tendency to want to select impact indicators, but impacts are often too long-term for useful indicators - the need is to for measures of progress in the short to medium term, progress which later on could result in an impact.

14. It is also possible to use an ex-post participatory scoring approach to assessing attribution in which the relative contribution of REDD+ and non-REDD+ factors to a given change are assessed (Richards, 2011: 45-47).

29

Table 7: Example indicators and monitoring plan from a Zanzibar REDD+ project

SMART objective

Indicator Does data already exist?

HOW? Data collection method

WHO? Data collection responsibility

WHEN? / Frequency of data collection

WHERE? Location of data collection

HOW MUCH? Relative cost

Non-REDD+ factors acting on indicator?

Comprehensive land use plans are developed to acceptable quality for all 39 villages in the project area and implemented by end of 2010

Land use plan for each village implemented to an acceptable standard

Yes Site visit Project M&E officer

2011, once only

Village Low

At least 4,000 households are using sustainable farming practices by 2014

Number of household using sustainable farming practices

No Household survey

Project M&E officer

Annual Household Medium-high

Area of land under slash and burn farming

No Survey mapping + GIS/remote sensing

Consultant Start and end of project comparison

Project area

Low-

medium

Increase in the mean income for at least 4,000 (25%) households in the project area by 2014, resulting in improved living conditions

Mean household income

Yes Household survey

Project M&E officer

Start and end of project comparison

Household Medium-high

Percentage of additional income being used to contribute to improved living conditions

No Household survey

Project M&E officer

Start and end of project comparison

Household Medium-high

5STAGE

Reporting and socialising the findings

Step Q. Technical report, briefing paper and workshop presentation

This involves writing a full report of the PSP process, a briefing paper of the main findings for policy makers, and presenting the findings to subnational REDD+ stakeholders in a one day workshop. There should also be a plan for reporting back to the range of stakeholder groups.

30

31

References

Conservation Measures Partnership. 2007. Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation. http://www.conservationmeasures.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/CMP_Open_Standards_Version_2.0.pdf

Lawlor, K. 2013. Methods for Assessing and Evaluating Socio-economic Impacts in REDD+. A Reference Manual. Forest Carbon, Markets and Communities Program/USAID. Vermont, US http://www.fcmcglobal.org/documents/LISA_REDD_Methods_Review.pdf

LEAF. 2014. Draft Decision Support Tool. Identifying and Addressing Drivers of Deforestation and Forest Degradation. Lowering Emissions in Asia’s Forests (LEAF) project, Bangkok.

OECD. 2007. Promoting Pro-Poor Growth. A Practical Guide to Ex Ante Poverty Impact Assessment. DAC Guidelines and Reference Series. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: Paris.

Richards, M. 2011. Social and Biodiversity Impact Assessment (SBIA) Manual for REDD+ Projects. Part II – Social Impact Assessment Toolbox. Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance, Forest Trends, Fauna & Flora International, and Rainforest Alliance: Washington, D.C. http://www.forest-trends.org/publication_details.php?publicationID=2997

Richards, M. and Panfil S.N. 2011. Social and Biodiversity Impact Assessment (SBIA) Manual for REDD+ Projects. Part I – Core Guidance for Project Proponents. Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance, Forest Trends, Fauna & Flora International, and Rainforest Alliance: Washington, D.C. http://www.forest-trends.org/publications/sbia_manual

Richards, M. & S.R. Swan 2014. Participatory Impact Assessment and

Monitoring for Meeting Safeguards and Optimising Multiple Benefits in Subnational Planning for REDD+: Methodology and Step-by-Step Guidance. SNV - The Netherlands Development Organisation, REDD+ Programme, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Vogel, I. 2012. Review of the use of ‘Theory of Change’ in International Development. UK Department for International Development: London. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/r4d/pdf/outputs/mis_spc/DFID_ToC_Review_VogelV7.pdf

World Bank. 2003. A User’s Guide to Poverty and Social Impact Analysis. World Bank. Washington, DC.

World Bank, 2011. ‘Poverty and Social Impacts Analysis in support of Climate Change Development Policy Operation.’ Consultancy Terms of Reference for Preliminary Research. Draft. Social Development Department, World Bank. Hanoi, Vietnam

World Bank. 2012. ‘Poverty and Social Impact Analysis for Climate Change.’ World Bank Guidance Note. Development Policy Operations. World Bank:Washington, D.C. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/ Resources/244362-1232059926563/ 5747581-1239131985528/PSIA- Climate-Change.pdf

32

Annex 1. Glossary

Adaptive management: A systematic process of improving and learning from project or programme outcomes based on an effective monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system, leading (if necessary) to modification of the REDD+ programme design and strategies.

Attribution: Establishing the causes of observed outcomes or impacts and especially how much of the impact or effects should be attributed to a particular programme, such as a subnational REDD+ programme, as opposed to other factors or influences.

Indicator: A quantitative or qualitative factor or variable that provides a simple and reliable means to measure programme/project achievement or progress.

Key challenge: An issue or problem that is important to overcome or counteract for the success of the programme or project.

Monitoring: The systematic and continuous on-going collection of data, including monitoring indicators, that can show the achievement or progress of project or programme objectives and that can be fed back to project/programme management in order to improve operational effectiveness.

Problem tree: An analysis, in the form of a flow diagram, of the direct and underlying causes of a key challenge or problem. It ensures a robust cause and effect basis for developing a results chain.

Results chain: A flow chart mapping out how a key challenge can be overcome by a set of causally linked results. A results chain provides the basis for a theory of change.

Theory of change (also sometimes called causal model): A theory-based

M&E tool that maps out the cause and effect linkages underlying a project or programme and thereby makes explicit the assumptions involved in a programme strategy and objectives.

Transmissions channels analysis: A method of assessing the direct and indirect social or poverty impacts of policy change, based on tracing through the effects of changes in six channels or pathways (due to the policy change) on vulnerable stakeholder groups: prices/costs, employment, fiscal and other financial transfers, authority or power, livelihood assets, and access to public/private goods and services.

Steve SwanSNV REDD+ Senior Advisorsswan@snvworld.orgTwitter: @SNVREDDwww.snvworld.org/redd