ccbs v2 community - amazon web services · ©2011 rainforest alliance ccb ... includes cultural...

©2011 Rainforest Alliance

CCB STANDARDS:

communityClimate, Community and

Biodiversity Standards

In-depth training

OVERVIEW

1. Introduction to the CCB Standards social

impact requirements

2. Techniques and tools for social impact

assessment

3. Assessment against the standard:

understanding the 4 key stages of community

impact assessment and monitoring in the CCB

Standards

2

Auditing

Tools

Social Reqs

INTRODUCTION

3

© J.Henman

STRUCTURE OF THE CCB COMMUNITY SECTION

4

CM1. Net Positive Community

Impacts

CM1.1 Appropriate socio-economic

methodologies to assess project

impact on communities

CM1.2 No negative effect on High

Conservation Values (HVC)

CM2. Offsite Stakeholder Impacts

CM 2.1 Identify negative offsite

stakeholder impacts

CM 2.2 Impact mitigation

CM 2.3 No net negative impacts on

other stakeholder groups

CM3. Community Impact Monitoring

CM 3.1 Selecting community variables

CM 3.2 Assess the effectiveness of

measures for HCV

CM 3.3 Full monitoring plan

Social

ReqsIntroduction

General Criteria

G 1.5 Description of communities in

project zone

G 1.6 Current land-use and property

rights

G 2.4 Without project scenario effect

on communities

G1.8.5 + G1.8.6 - Community high

conservation value areas

FOUR KEY STAGES TO SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT IN

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

5

Stage Brief description Relevant criteria

1 an accurate description of socio-economic conditions for all

affected stakeholders at the start of the project;

G1.5; G1.6;

G1.8.5-6

2 a projection of how those conditions would change in the

absence of the project (the “without-project” scenario);

G2.1; G2.2; G2.4

3 a description of the likely [positive and negative] outcomes

after implementation (the “with-project” scenario);

description of how negative impacts will be mitigated;

G3.1; 3.2; 3.3; 3.5;

3.7; 3.8; G5.4; 5.5;

5.6; CM1; CM2;

GL1-5

4 design and implementation of a credible system for

monitoring social impacts – known as the “community

monitoring plan”

CM3

RequirementsSocial

Reqs

WHAT ARE SOCIAL IMPACTS?

By social impacts we mean the consequences to human

populations of any public or private actions that alter the ways

in which people live, work, play, relate to one another, organize to meet

their needs and generally cope as members of society. The term also

includes cultural impacts involving changes to the norms, values, and

beliefs that guide and rationalize their cognition of themselves and their

society.

National Maritime Fisheries Service, 1994

6

”

“

Social

Reqs Introduction

© J.Henman

Negative social results • Migration of external families to existing villages

neighboring the project area causing pressure on

land/forest/ resources

• Social conflict between foreign workers and local

workers

• Displacement of grazing animals from project

area

Positive social results• Salaries paid to workers/ increased incomes

• Health care for workers and neighboring villages

• Worker accident insurance

• Local road improvement

• Financial and technical support for public works

in local communities

THE SOCIAL IMPACTS OF CARBON PROJECTS:

CAMPO VERDE PROJECT

7Introduction

Reforestation with Native SpeciesCampo Verde, Ucayali, Peru

Validated to the CCB Standards First

Edition

PDD available at CCB Web site

Social

Reqs

https://s3.amazonaws.com/CCBA/Projects/Reforestation_with_Native_Commercial_Species_on_Degraded_Lands_for_Timber_and_Carbon_Purposes_in_Campo_Verde_Ucayali-Peru/CCBA_PDD-Campo+Verde_02Sep10.pdf

SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS ARE TRICKY!

8

• The problem of attribution – it is difficult to prove cause and effect

• Social impacts tend to be long-term phenomena – it is hard and

unrealistic to identify them in the short-term

• Social impacts may be subtle and not easily measured

• Social impacts are often unexpected and/or can be negative, e.g.

difficult livelihood transition in REDD projects

• Social impacts are easy to confuse with outcomes

• Lack of research data on the social effects of land-based carbon projects

• Lack of user-friendly guidance on SIA for carbon project developers

Social

ReqsIntroduction

HOWEVER….

9

• They do not require sophisticated methods

• Based on the principle of ‘appropriate imprecision’, project proponents can

credibly document the likely social impacts of a carbon project, insofar as it

is possible to judge them at any point in time.

• Project staff can carry it out given the right guidance, some training and/or a

week or two of technical assistance

• Range of projects type and scales means there is no one size fits all approach

- REDD project: potential relocation, change in livelihoods

- A/R: potentially no communities in the project zone/area

Social

ReqsIntroduction

© J.Henman

10

TECHNIQUES AND TOOLS

© J.Henman

WHAT WILL I LEARN IN THE COMMUNITY TECHNIQUES AND

TOOLS SECTION?

You will gain an understanding of:

1. Identifying and differentiating between stakeholders

2. Data collection and analysis

3. Indicators and their selection

4. Projecting the future

11Tools Introduction

1. IDENTIFYING AND DIFFERENTIATING STAKEHOLDERS

• Communities (Appendix B) :

Group of people who live within or adjacent to the project area or groups that regularly visit

the area for income, livelihood or cultural values

• Indigenous Peoples (G1.5; CM1.1) :

Distinct, (usually) vulnerable, social and cultural group often segregated by different language;

customary cultural, economic, social, or political institutions; collective attachment to

geographically distinct habitats or ancestral territories

• Other stakeholders (G3.8) or off-site stakeholders (CM.2):

Main groups potentially affected by the project activities that are not living on or adjacent to the

project site.

12Tools Stakeholders

The CCB Standards refer to a number of different stakeholder groups


• Communities (areas 1+2)

• Indigenous Peoples (all areas)

• Other stakeholders and off-site

stakeholders (area 3)

13

1. Project

area

2. Project zone

3. Off-site

Tools Stakeholders


Within these groups, stakeholders can further be differentiated through (GI.5):

Cultural diversity: ethnicity, gender, age

Economic diversity:

• wealth (e.g. household income, land owned, etc.)

• well-being (e.g. size of land-holding, levels of health, education, labour resources, vulnerability to risk, etc.)

• land use/livelihood interests (e.g. pastoralists, charcoal producers, etc.)


© J.Henman

MINORITY STAKEHOLDER GROUPS

The CCB Standards require that specific minority stakeholder

groups have been properly identified and consulted (G1.5; G3.8). For

example, women, the elderly, ethnic minorities etc.

• This may include:

– Ensuring balanced representation of women and men in focus group discussions

– Separate focus group discussions with minority groups (men, women, the elderly,

etc.)


!

Community

carbon group,

planting on their

own land and

boundary

planting on

reserve

EXERCISE 1: KIKONDA FORESTRY PROJECT, UGANDA

16

District

agricultural

authority

managing land

outside reserve

In-migrants moving

to area for

employment

National forest

authority owning

reserve land

Project developer,

leasing reserve land

and supporting

adjacent communities

Reserve

land

Charcoal

producers

on reserve

land

Seasonal

pastoralists

using reserve

land

Other community

members, some

employed on reserve

and some benefitting

from school teacherTools Stakeholders

For a good guide to conducting

stakeholder analysis see: CARE, 2002.

STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS

Stakeholder analysis aims to:


Identifying stakeholders is needed for the stakeholder analysis

3. Identify their likely reaction to project interventions or external

pressures

2. Identify their relative power in relation to key socio-economic

conditions (e.g. over community decision making processes) and project

impacts; and

1. Identify their interests and interactions with other stakeholder groups

http://www.proventionconsortium.org/themes/default/pdfs/CRA/HLSA2002_meth.pdf

STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS: EXAMPLE


STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS: THINGS TO WATCH IN

PROJECT DESIGN

• Poorly defined process for identifying stakeholders or process is badly

implemented (e.g. limited number of stakeholders consulted)

• Main stakeholders (including off-site) are not clearly differentiated in

the PDD, based on the criteria listed in CM1.5 and G3.8

• No evidence that stakeholders have been consulted in the project

• Purposeful avoidance of key stakeholder groups, such as women or

ethnic minorities (possibly linked to negative project impacts or

discrimination)

• Stakeholders have been coerced into giving responses favourable to

project developer

• No differentiation based on wealth or well-being, or has not been

carried out in accordance with best practice (e.g. in terms of sample sizes)

19

!

Tools Stakeholders

2. SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

• Qualitative and quantitative

– Qualitative processes may give more detail on specific issues and reasons

why different issues are arising

– Quantitative processes can be useful to give broad overview information on

local trends (e.g. number of people in different types of employment)

• Participatory and non-participatory processes

– Participatory processes require involvement of affected stakeholders in

defining the types of information collected and in providing information

– Non-participatory processes involve pre-defined information types and

measures (e.g. household questionnaires and expert interviews)

• CCB Standards emphasise the use of participatory approaches in all stages

20Tools Data Collection

Type of data collection and analysis

2. SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

THINGS TO WATCH OUT IN PROJECT

DESIGN

• Qualitative and participatory research methods have become more

popular in social impact assessments but there are some pitfalls:

– Participatory research methods can be subject to bias and subjectivity and

may be less effective for measuring indicators based on SMART objectives

– Qualitative research is time consuming, costly and can have a high

opportunity cost for local people

• Quantitative and qualitative data collection methods should be

combined in order to get a reliable scenario of what is happening on the

ground

• The sequence of data collection is very important – it is better to

start with participatory methods which can then inform and improve the

research methods used in the more targeted analysis, e.g., facilitating the

design of short and focused household surveys.


!

EXERCISE 2: DATA ANALYSIS AND COLLECTION

Can you list different

techniques for socio-

economic data

analysis and

collection?


© J.Henman

TECHNIQUES FOR SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA

COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data collection and

analysis techniques

Household surveys

Focus groups

Key informant interviews

Participa-tory rural appraisal

Expert analysis

Secondary data

sources

Tools Data Collection

HOUSEHOLD SURVEYS

• Questionnaires of varying length applied to a sample of households, including only or mostly closed questions, designed to gather data on demography, wealth, social structures, health, household perceptions, etc.

• Useful for quantitative data on basic indicators, getting the general picture

• Pitfalls:

– Sample size is not representative

– Poorly selected sample (e.g. random; stratified etc.)

– Poor quality and clarity of questions in questionnaire

– Interviewers don’t understand the situation and how to ask the questions

24

For a good guide on carrying

out household surveys, see:

Wilkie, 2006


© J.Henman

http://wcslivinglandscapes.com/landscapes/media/file/LLP_Manual4_HouseholdSurveys_EN.pdf

FOCUS GROUPS

• Discussions around specific topics with a small group of people, sometimes selected to be representative of certain social groups

• Useful for

Producing data and insights that would be less accessible without interactionfound in a group setting

-> early - to obtain a general understanding of important issues

-> later - to gain an in-depth understanding


• Pitfalls:

– Bias in groups selected (e.g. all male; dominant group members)

– Group size is not large enough to be representative

– Directing conversation in a group setting can be challenging

– Facilitator/translator not independent of group’s interests

– Few focus groups conducted

For a good guide on key informant

interviews, see: USAID, 1996

KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS

• Interviews with key players both

inside and outside the community.

– These are often semi-structured,

i.e. based on an interview checklist.

• Useful for:

– Gaining a general understanding of issues

– Cross-check findings from other sources

• Interpreting quantitative data


• Pitfalls:

– Key informants from different

interest groups have not been

consulted

– Difficult to prove validity of

findings

– Answers can be influenced by

interviewer

PARTICIPATORY RURAL APPRAISAL (PRA) and

RAPID RURAL APPRAISAL (RRA)

• RRA and PRA use the same participatory tools e.g.:– Participatory mapping and transect

walks with farmers

– Seasonal calendars (e.g. of activities, income, expenditure)

– Matrices (e.g. to rank or score the perceived significance of different impacts)

• Different focus:– RRA focuses on extracting information

– PRA focuses on stimulating research and analysis by local people

• Useful for detailed social impact assessment

• Pitfalls:– Can be costly and time consuming

27

For a good guide on carrying out PRA

look at: PROFOR, 2008.


EXPERT ANALYSIS

• Consultation with local and/or international

experts about socio-economic conditions in the

project zone

• Useful for understanding trends in data and

cross-checking information from participatory

processes

• Pitfalls:

– Low independence of experts in relation to

project developer or stakeholder interests


© J.Henman

SECONDARY DATA SOURCES

• May include a range of data sources

such as national statistics,

student dissertations on socio-

economic issues in the project

zone etc.

• Useful for cross-checking and

comparing primary data results

• Pitfalls:

– Heavy reliance on these sources

– Assumptions/approaches used are

not comparable with primary

data sources


EXPERIENCE-SHARING

Does anyone have experience with socio-

economic data collection methods to

share?

• Most useful methods and why?

• Useful participatory exercises?

• Useful variation of methods?

• Identification of other pitfalls?

• On the ground examples?


WEALTH OR WELL-BEING RANKING

Wealth and well-being can be used to differentiate stakeholders and develop meaningful information:

– Helps to uncover and choose appropriate local indicators and criteria for wealth and well-being;

– Draws attention to different socio-economic situations within the community (and possibly compare against national or local poverty benchmarks);

– Develops a basis on which to select households from different well-being categories for household interviews.

31

For a good guide on

carrying out wealth

ranking, see: PROFOR,

2007

Tools Stakeholders

• To achieve gold level for exceptional

community benefits, projects must use

wealth ranking to demonstrate that “at

least 50% of households within the

lowest category of well-being are likely

to benefit”

© J.Henman

http://www.profor.info/profor/sites/profor.info/files/PFL_Tool_01_07-01.pdf

CHECKING THE QUALITY OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC

DATA

Approach Description

Triangulation of data

sources

Triangulation between information from three or more sources or

types of information (including from secondary data) is an important

part of the research process, allowing for information from one tool to

be confirmed or refuted by, or probed further with, other tools.

Feedback and

validation by

communities

Feedback of research results to communities is not only an integral and

fundamental part of participatory research processes but can also

provide an important opportunity for checking interpretation of

information collected.

Care to avoid bias in

responses

Checking that person carrying out the survey has no interests in the

project or the community; checking stakeholder selection process to

avoid domination by elites; strategic responses of project beneficiaries

Use of significant

sample sizes and

appropriate sampling

methods

Particularly where quantitative information is collected and analysed,

(e.g. household surveys) it is important to ensure that a large enough

sample is taken and that an appropriate sampling method is used

32

!


3. SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDICATORS

Socio-economic indicators are required throughout the CCB

Standards. They include:

• Original conditions (G1): indicators are needed to describe existing socio-

economic conditions (e.g. household income)

• Baseline (G2): indicators are needed to describe how socio-economic

conditions may change in the future (e.g. increasing household income due to

new infrastructure development and access to markets)

• Project impacts (G3; CM1): indicators are needed to describe how socio-

economic conditions may change in the future due to the project (e.g.

increasing household income due to employment provided by project)

• Community impact monitoring (CM3): indicators are needed to measure

actual changes in socio-economic conditions due to the project

33Tools Indicators

SOCIAL IMPACT INDICATOR SELECTION

• Indicator selection needs to be based on the causal model for the project,

and they need to be SMART

• But, social impact indicators specifically, should ideally have been discussed

with (and possibly defined by) communities

• Methodological frameworks can also be used to help define and choose

indicators. Examples include:

– Sustainable livelihoods framework

– Social carbon standard http://www.socialcarbon.org/documents/

34Tools Indicators

http://www.socialcarbon.org/documents/

EXAMPLE: SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS FRAMEWORK

35

Type of

capital

Examples of outcome indicators presented in PDD (+ = positive impact, - = negative impact)

Financial

capital

Increase in employment in forestry (+)

Loss of employment in certain activities (e.g. charcoal production on plantation land) (-)

Increase in income from ecotourism (+)

Loss of income from lost access to NTFPs (-)

Human

capital

Increase in knowledge and perception of forest resources (+)

Improvement in skills in business and administration (+)

Improvement in skills and knowledge of forest management, sustainable agriculture, wildlife management (+)

Natural

capital

Increase in productivity of forest systems (+)

Decrease in access to and use of forest resources either commercially or ‘in-kind’ (e.g. NTFPs, timber,

fuelwood, charcoal, medicines etc.) (-)

Decrease in access to local ecosystem services (use of water sources, soil, biodiversity) (-)

Improved quality of ecosystem services (e.g. soil quality) (+)

Physical

capital

Decreased quality of transport infrastructure (-)

Increased access to markets (+)

Increased access to health clinics (+)

Increased access to education (+)

Social

capital

More democratic decision making processes in communities (e.g. village councils and their governance; forest

user groups) (+)

Stronger role of specific groups/individuals in decision making processes (e.g. procedures for involvement of

women, children, elderly, etc.) (+)

More secure rights to land and forest resources for community landowners (+)

Loss of customary rights due to the formalisation of statutory land tenure (-)

Social problems (e.g. alcoholism, violence, health etc.) (-)

EXAMPLE: SOCIAL CARBON STANDARD

•Has a list of ‘approved’

social indicators

•Based on Financial,

Human, Social and

Natural resources

Financial

Resources

Ability or capacity to access credit

Participation in goods and services markets

Level of household income savings

‘Economic and social returns'

Human

Resources

State of family health

Adult literacy level

Professional skills in the household (especially agriculture,

livestock, extractivism)

Formal education levels

Disease incidence

Work attitudes

Leisure options

‘Technical competence'

Access to technical extension services

Social

Resources:

Level of participation in civil organizations

Number of people taking collective decisions

Adherence to and actions by institutions representing

community

Level of dependency on government interventions

Degree of community organization - formal associates or

community groups

Family networks

Internal conflicts and their causes (external or internal)

Natural

Resources

Rate of deforestation

Level of fish & wild game stocks

Quality of soil & water

Degree of fragmentation of local ecosystems

Level of protection

TYPES OF INDICATORS (RECAP)

Description

Outputs Immediate, tangible and intended goods and

services. The project has direct control over the delivery

of outputs.

Outcomes Intended or achieved short- and medium-term

behavioral or systemic effects of a project’s outputs

that are designed to help achieve the project’s impacts. May

also be influenced by factors outside the direct control of

the project.

Impacts Long-term fundamental and durable changes (+ and

-) in the condition of identifiable population groups and

their environment produced by a development intervention,

directly or indirectly, intended or unintended.

37Tools Indicators

EXERCISE 3: IDENTIFYING INDICATORS

Arrange the indicators on the next slide

into output, outcome and impact

categories

38Tools Indicators

EXERCISE 4: CLASSIFY INDICATORS BY TYPE

39Tools Indicators

Which of these are output indicators?

Which are outcome indicators?

Which are impact indicators?

EXERCISE 4: INDICATORS BY TYPE

40

Category

Output • numbers of jobs created

• number of people trained in X

• number of trees planted

Outcome • number of households adopting an alternative livelihood activity

• % or absolute increase in household income from carbon payments

• number of people who understand the basic accounts of community costs and

benefits (this is a measure of governance transparency)

Impact • % reduction in infant mortality or % of household living on < $1 per day

• % of local population changing from negative to positive attitude to forest

conservation measures;

• a reduction in domestic violence

Tools Indicators

THINGS TO WATCH IN PROJECTS

• Indicators are not relevant for tracking socio-economic impacts of projects

• There is no evidence that indicators are linked to discussions with

stakeholders about how they view potential project impacts

• Indicators are not SMART

• Proxy indicators are used but there is no justification as to how these may

link to actual project outcomes and impacts

• All indicators listed in the PDD/monitoring plan are ‘output’ indicators. There

are no outcome or impact indicators OR there is no justification of the links

between output and outcome/impact indicators

41Tools Indicators

!

THINGS TO WATCH IN PROJECTS

• Verification for the CCB Standard must begin within 5 years of the last

validation or verification, it is more practical to:

-Identify short/medium-term social benefits for project outputs and

outcomes

• If evidence is presented that the short/intermediate term objectives are

being achieved, and if it forms the convincing cause and effect story, then

the auditor can have reasonable confidence that the longer-term

objectives (impacts) will be achieved

42Tools Indicators

!

4. SOCIAL IMPACT PROJECTIONS

43

Projections about future socio-economic conditions or impacts

are required in the following parts of CCB PDDs:

• Baseline (G2): to project how socio-economic conditions may change in the

future (e.g. increasing household income due to new infrastructure

development and access to markets)

• Projected project impacts (G3): to project how socio-economic

conditions may change in the future due to the project (e.g. increasing

household income due to employment provided by project)

• Net community and off-site stakeholder impacts (CM1; CM2): to

project net community impacts by comparing the impacts with the project

with those in the baseline

Tools Projecting Impacts

EXERCISE 5 : TOOLS FOR CONSTRUCTING

PROJECTIONS

Can you list different

tools to create social

impacts projections?

44Tools Projecting Impacts

© J.Henman

TOOLS FOR CONSTRUCTING PROJECTIONS

45

Projections

Household surveys

Project case

studies

Scenario analysis

Problem trees

Focus groups

Secondary data on trends


(PARTICIPATORY) SCENARIO ANALYSIS

• 5 step process for building future scenarios

• Useful because it is highly participatory; offers a structured process for building scenarios

• Pitfalls:

– Stakeholders not given sufficient information on the project activities

– Assumptions used in PDD do not reflect those given by stakeholders

– Scenario analysis was not carried out with different stakeholder groups

46

Step 1• Identifying historic trends

Step 2

• Identifying focal questions (e.g. what are your concerns for future with/without project?)

Step 3

• Identifying drivers of change that may affect the future

Step 4• Identifying scenario starting points

Step 5• Creating narratives about the future

For a good guide on building scenarios,

see: Evans, 2006


http://www.asb.cgiar.org/PDFwebdocs/Evans-et-al-2006-Field-guide-to-the-future.pdf


PROBLEM TREES

• Participatory process where the project links the problems that it is addressing with the social, environmental and/or economic conditions it wishes to improve.

• Useful in helping to define objectives of project, establishing causality, understanding viewpoints of various stakeholder groups (if each group constructs its own problem tree.)

• Pitfalls:

– Often requires significant facilitation to achieve effective results

– Multiple stakeholder groups develop separate problem trees in isolation of one another

47

For a good guide on problem trees, see:

MDF (undated)


http://www.toolkitsportdevelopment.org/html/resources/91/910EE48E-350A-47FB-953B-374221B375CE/03 Problem tree analysis.pdf

PROJECT CASE STUDIES

• Use of case studies of existing

projects that implement similar

activities to identify links between

activities and impacts

• Useful for gaining a general

understanding about the possible

outcomes and impacts of carbon

forestry projects and causes of

change

• Pitfalls:

– Not sufficient for understanding

specific project impacts as these vary

with context


© J.Henman

EXPERIENCE-SHARING

Does anyone have experience with

projection tools to share?

• Most useful methods and why?

• Useful participatory exercises?

• Useful variation of methods?

• Identification of other pitfalls?

• On the ground examples?


PROJECTING PROJECT RISKS

50

Alternative livelihoods

Compensation

Conflict resolution

Tools Projecting Risks

Carbon projects also create new risks for stakeholders which need to be

carefully projected by project developers. There is no set process for this.

But this can be done by:

• Use of project case studies to

identify general risk categories for

carbon forestry project types,

• Discussion of potential risks with

stakeholders during participatory

processes

PROJECTIONS: THINGS TO WATCH IN PROJECTS

• Stakeholders have not been involved in projections by defining the main processes and causative factors for change in social conditions

• No evidence that risks related to projects been discussed in the PDD or with stakeholders

• Key assumptions that have been used to develop projections about socio-economic conditions are not well justified

• No evidence that all stakeholder groups have been consulted about the suitability of mitigation strategies

• Alternative livelihood opportunities/compensation do not cover all affected stakeholders or are not viable in the long term

• Risks have not been properly identified because stakeholder consultation lacked independence


!

SOCIAL AND BIODIVERSITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT (SBIA)

MANUAL FOR REDD+ PROJECTS

• Released September

2011

• Part 1: Core Guidance

• Part 2: Social Impact

Assessment Toolkit

• Authors: Michael

Richards and Steven

Panfil

52

SBIA MANUAL: DESCRIBES 7 STAGE PROCESS

53

SBIA MANUAL: SBIA ‘MAIN WORKSHOP’ APPROACH

• A ‘Main Workshop’ or series of workshops is a central approach recommended

in the SBIA Manual at the design phase for projects

• The workshop would comprise of approximately 20-25 selected group of stakeholder

participants who represent all whose rights may be affected by the project

• Non-stakeholders should not be included

• Stakeholder participants needs to be carefully selected, and briefed with adequate

notice about the meeting and logistical arrangements

• A strong ‘workshop coordinator’ should be identified ahead of time

• It may be necessary to pay participants a ‘per diem’ to compensate for lost livelihood

from the time spent at the workshop

• A workshop would ideally be convened ‘offsite’ for approx 4-5 days to go through the

steps of the SBIA process

54

SBIA MANUAL: SBIA WORKSHOP ACTIVITIES

• Stage 1: Starting Conditions Study and Stakeholder Identification

– Prior to the workshop, key stakeholder representatives will have been selected

– Define the project scope

– Develop a ‘vision statement’

– Identify Focal Issues & Focal Issue Statements

• Stage 2: “Without-Project” Social and Biodiversity Projections – What

Would Happen Without the Project?

– Divide workshop participants into focal issue ‘Working Groups’

– Developing Flow Diagrams to show how different causal factors affect focal issue

– Project change to focal issue, considering both negative and positive effects of the

‘without-project’ scenario over two future time frames

55

SBIA WORKSHOP ACTIVITIES -

EXAMPLE POVERTY FLOW DIAGRAM

56

SBIA WORKSHOP ACTIVITIES

• Stage 3: Project Design and Theory of Change – How Will the Social

and Biodiversity Benefits Be Achieved?

– Develop a results chain for each focal issue

– Results chains aim to cover negative factors identified in problem flow diagrams

– Develop a provisional ‘theory of change’ statement

57


EXAMPLE POVERTY RESULTS CHAIN

58


• Stage 4: Negative Impacts, Risks and Mitigation/Prevention

Measures – What Could Go Wrong?

– For each identified negative impact, the focal issue working group should identify

mitigation actions, or compensation mechanisms

– Integrate mitigation measures into the project results chain (see example in next

slide)

– Carry out a risk assessment on main results in the results chain

– Develop risk reduction or mitigation strategy, per identified risk

– Modification of ‘theory of change’ statement as needed

59

SBIA WORKSHOP ACTIVITIESEXAMPLE POVERTY RESULTS CHAIN, WITH NEGATIVE IMPACTS INCLUDED

60


• Stage 5 : Identification of Indicators – What Should We Measure?

• Stage 6: Developing the Monitoring Plan – How Should We Measure

the Indicators?

– The part of the workshop to cover stages 5+6 can be conducted with a sub-group

of the main workshop participants (as stages 2-4 can easily consume 4 days)

– In addition a couple of monitoring and evaluation experts could ideally participate

– The sub-group should convene immediately following the main workshop and

complete stages 5 + 6

61


• Stage 5 : Identification of Indicators – What Should We Measure?

– The sub-group should be divided into two monitoring plan teams

– Each team should work simultaneously to develop a ‘focal issue’ monitoring plan

– Review results chain and causal relationships (outputs, outcomes and impacts)

– Prioritize and identify pivotal results/objectives (select most important given not all

results can have indicators associated with them)

– Identify one indicator per objective, ensuring they are SMART

– Review other teams objectives and indicators

62


63

• Examples of Objectives and Indicators (from GuateCarbon REDD Project)

Focal Issue Objectives Indicators

Strengthened

Governance

By January 2012, the Coordinating Committee of

the Maya Biosphere Reserve has the mechanisms

to implement the environmental security strategy

in at least 70% of the area

- Mechanisms approved

By March 2012, an effective program of

community leadership is being developed in 10

concessions

- Community leadership program

designed and implemented

- Number of people trained

By June 2014, at least 50% of judiciary operators

in the Petén are applying their specialized

understanding of environmental legislation

- Number of judiciary operators

trained

By December 2014, at least 80% of environmental

actions result in crime sentences

Number of criminal sentences


• Stage 6: Developing the Monitoring Plan – How Should We Measure

the Indicators?

– This stage builds directly on the indicators developed in stage 5

– On a large sheet of paper, the columns below should be drawn up, and then

populated by the sub-group, based on the objectives and indicators chosen in stage

5.

64

Objective Indicator Indicator

Type

Data Collection

Method

Existing

Data

Who? When? Where? Cost to

Project

65

EVALUATION AGAINST THE

STANDARD

OVERVIEW OF THE EVALUATION SECTION

This section covers the following elements, which are especially

important during project evaluation against the standard

1.Establishing the original conditions of a project site (G1.5, G1.6)

2.How to make and evaluate baseline projections (without project scenario)

(G2.4)

3.Establishing net community impact (with project scenario)(CM.1)

4.Leakage (CM.2)

5.Monitoring community impacts (CM.3)

6.Gold-level impacts (GL.2)

66

G1. ORIGINAL CONDITIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA

67

• What does the standard require? Original conditions of the project area

(including the surrounding area) before the project commences must be

described.

• Why? Provides the core information for establishing a baseline of future

socio-economic conditions either with or without the project.

Auditing 1. Original Conditions

G1. ORIGINAL CONDITIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA

68Auditing

Requirements:

Community Information

• Description of the communities in the project zone (G1.5)

• Description of the current land-use and property rights (G1.6)

1. Original Conditions

A description of communities located in the project zone, including basic socio-

economic and cultural information that describes the social, economic and cultural

diversity within communities (wealth, gender, age, ethnicity etc.), identifies specific

groups such as Indigenous Peoples and describes any community characteristics

G1.5 DESCRIPTION OF THE COMMUNITIES

LOCATED IN THE PROJECT ZONE


© J.Henman

G1.5 DESCRIPTION OF THE COMMUNITIES

LOCATED IN THE PROJECT ZONE

• Information should be aligned to compare with-project scenario.

• The communities should cover all groups of people in the project zone,

including indigenous and mobile people

• The description of the communities should cover financial, human,

natural, physical and social aspects

• The socio economic information should be gathered using participatory

processes and mixing qualitative and quantitative data or based on

official statistics

70

Common Pitfalls

• The socio-economic information is not disaggregated between the

different stakeholder groups

• Lack of consultation of all stakeholder groups identified

• The factors most likely to be impacted by the project are not identified

Conformance


A description of current land use and customary and legal property rights including

community property in the project zone, identifying any ongoing or unresolved

conflicts or disputes and identifying and describing any disputes over land tenure that

were resolved during the last ten years (see also G5)

G1.6 DESCRIPTION OF THE CURRENT LAND USE

AND PROPERTY RIGHTS


© J.Henman

G1.6 DESCRIPTION OF THE CURRENT LAND USE

AND PROPERTY RIGHTS

• The PDD should describe the types of agricultural systems, types of

forest management and property systems.

• Tenure rights should be documented to highlight conflicts or

disputes, e.g. forest management plans, independent title search.

• Tenure documents should include date of issuance and validity and their

relative importance.

72

Common Pitfalls

• The PDD does not describe the public, private and communal

property systems.

• Differences between government regulations and customary practices

inadequately presented.

• Ongoing conflicts or disputes over land tenure are not clearly

described.

Conformance


G.2 BASELINE PROJECTIONS

73

• What does the standard require? Baseline conditions of the project area

(including the surrounding area) in the absence of project activities.

• Why? Project impacts will be measured against this ‘without-project’

reference scenario.

Auditing 2. Baseline Projection

G.2 BASELINE PROJECTIONS

74Auditing

Requirements:

Community Information

• Description of ‘without project’ scenario effect on communities in the

project zone (G2.4)

2. Baseline Projection

Describe how the “without project” reference scenario would affect communities in

the project zone, including the impact of likely changes in water, soil and other locally

important ecosystem services.

G2.4 WITHOUT PROJECT SCENARIO EFFECT ON

THE COMMUNITIES


• Describe the baseline indicators chosen for the ‘without project’

scenario projection of the socio-economic conditions

• Describe how the indicators link to the project’s causal model

• Give evidence that the communities were consulted for the

establishment of projections

• Substantiate statements with scientific literature and regional studies

76

Common Pitfalls

• Lack of use of a methodological framework to select the baseline

indicators

• No clear differentiation between output, outcome, impact indicators

• Not all stakeholder groups were consulted

Conformance


G2.4 WITHOUT PROJECT SCENARIO AFFECT ON

THE COMMUNITIES

CM1. NET POSITIVE COMMUNITY IMPACTS

77

• What does the standard require? The standard requires that the project

generate net positive impacts on the social and economic well being of

communities

• Why? Projects must ensure that cost and benefits are equitably shared

among community members and constituent groups during the project

lifetime

Auditing 3. Net Positive Impacts

CM1. NET POSITIVE COMMUNITY IMPACTS

78Auditing 3. Net Positive Impacts

Requirements:

• Use of appropriate methodologies for the impact assessment (CM1.1)

• Demonstrate that no High Conservation Values are negatively impacted

(CM1.2)

CM1.2 will be covered with the rest of the HCVs in the Biodiversity

Section

KEY POINTS

• Use appropriate methodologies to estimate the impacts on

communities, (defined in G1), resulting from planned project activities.

• Produce a credible estimate of impacts on communities well-being due to

project activities and an evaluation of the impacts by affected groups.

• Compare the ‘with-project’ scenario to the ‘without project’ scenario of

social and economic well-being (completed in G2).

• The difference (i.e., the community benefit) must be positive for all

community groups.

CM1.1 USE OF APPROPRIATE METHODOLOGIES

FOR IMPACT ASSESSMENT


• Use robust methodologies, such as the one in Annex A of the CCB

Standard

• Develop a robust causal model for future impacts justifying all

assumptions used

• Use comparable indicators between with and without scenario

• Give evidence of the self-evaluation of impacts by affected groups

80

Common Pitfalls

• No clear definition of the assumptions about how the project will

alter social and economic well-being

•The benefits are not clearly equitable across all stakeholder groups

•Significant groups not consulted

•Well being is not restricted to legal activities

Conformance


CM1.1 USE OF APPROPRIATE METHODOLOGIES

FOR IMPACT ASSESSMENT

CM2. OFFSITE STAKEHOLDER IMPACTS

81

• What does the standard require? The standard requires that the project

must evaluate and mitigate any possible impacts that could result in the

decreased well-being of the main stakeholders living outside of the project

zone as a result of the project activities

• Why? Projects should at least ‘do no harm’ to the well-being of the offsite

stakeholders

Auditing 4. Offsite Stakeholder Impacts

CM2. OFFSITE STAKEHOLDER IMPACTS

82Auditing 4. Offsite Stakeholder Impacts

Requirements:

• Identify negative offsite stakeholder impacts (CM2.1)

• Describe the project plan to mitigate these impacts (CM2.2)

• Demonstrate the project will not result in net-negative impacts (CM2.3)

Identify any potential negative offset stakeholder impacts that the project activities are

likely to cause.

CM2.1 IDENTIFY NEGATIVE OFFSITE

STAKEHOLDER IMPACTS


© J.Henman

• Use of case studies to identify general risk categories of project

impacts on stakeholders

• The PDD must describe the stakeholder analysis process used to

identify affected stakeholders

84

Common Pitfalls

• No evidence that the offsite stakeholders have been consulted

• No evidence that an offsite stakeholder differentiation based on wealth or

well being has been carried out

Conformance


CM2.1 IDENTIFY NEGATIVE OFFSITE

STAKEHOLDER IMPACTS

Describe how the project plans to mitigate these negative offsite social and economic

impacts.

CM2.2 IMPACT MITIGATION PROJECT PLAN


• The PDD must detail who will be targeted by a mitigation strategy and

what mitigation activities are proposed

• The PDD must demonstrate that the mitigation activities will

adequately compensate the stakeholders affected

• The PDD must prove that the mitigation strategies will be effective

during throughout the duration of the project

CM2.2 IMPACT MITIGATION PROJECT PLAN


Common Pitfalls

Conformance

• The stakeholders are not informed of the risks related to the project

• The stakeholders have not been consulted regarding the mitigation

activities using a participatory process

Demonstrate that the project is not likely to result in net negative impacts on the well-

being of other stakeholder groups.

CM2.3 NO NET-NEGATIVE IMPACTS DEMONSTRATION


Source: Project PDD

•Similarly to CM2.1 use case studies to identify general risk categories and

a stakeholder analysis process to identify offsite stakeholders

•Describe all long-term alternative solutions to compensate for negative

impacts

CM2.3


CM2.3 NO NET-NEGATIVE IMPACTS DEMONSTRATION

Common Pitfalls

Conformance

•Lack of evidence of the discussion of potential risks with stakeholders

during the participatory process

•The off-site stakeholders’ likely reaction to project interventions or

external pressures has not been correctly identified

CM3. COMMUNITY IMPACT MONITORING

89

• What does the standard require? That the project must have a

monitoring plan indicating which communities and other stakeholders will be

monitored, and identifying the types of measurements, the sampling method,

and the frequency of measurement.

It is accepted that some of the plan details might not be

defined at the Validation stage as long as there is an explicit

commitment to do so later

• Why? Projects should quantify and document changes in social and

economic well-being resulting from the project activities for communities and

other stakeholders

Auditing 5. Impact Monitoring

CM3. COMMUNITY IMPACT MONITORING

90Auditing 5. Impact Monitoring

Requirements:

• Develop an initial plan for selecting community variables to be monitored

and the frequency of monitoring (CM3.1)

• Develop an initial plan to assess the effectiveness of measures used to

maintain or enhance HCVs (CM3.2)

• Commit to developing and disseminating a full monitoring plan (CM3.3)

CM3.2 will be covered with the rest of the HCVs in the Biodiversity

Section

Develop an initial plan for selecting community variables to be monitored and the

frequency of monitoring and reporting to ensure that monitoring variable are directly

linked to the projects’ community development objectives and to anticipated impacts

(positive and negative)

CM3.1 MONITORING VARIABLES AND FREQUENCY


© J.Henman

• List potential community variables which can include income,

employment, health, market access, schooling, food availability, security, etc.

• Describe the monitoring data collected e.g. payrolls, annual audit

reports

• Show comparison between project metrics and census or baseline

data to determine project effect on community development


CM3.1 MONITORING VARIABLES AND FREQUENCY

Common Pitfalls

Conformance

• Variables chosen are not directly affected by the project

• Frequency of measurement is not representative of the variables

• Variables from other major stakeholder groups omitted

Commit to developing a full monitoring plan within six months of the project start

date or within twelve months of validation against the Standards and to disseminate

this plan and the results of monitoring, ensuring that they are made publicly available

on the internet and are communicated to the communities and other stakeholders.

CM3.3 COMMITING TO A FULL MONITORING PLAN


• The PDD should contain a statement of intention for the development

of the full monitoring plan and timelines for this

• Evidence that the plan and monitoring results will be disseminated to all

stakeholders, ideally the list of variables and frequency of monitoring

should have already been disseminated

• Present the strategy for the public dissemination of the monitoring

plan


CM3.3 COMMITING TO A FULL MONITORING PLAN

Common Pitfalls

Conformance

• Some stakeholders are not aware of the monitoring process or don’t

understand what it entails

• No demonstration that the steps required to deliver a full monitoring plan

are achievable within the timeline

• Only community “authorities” are informed of process, and not majority of

community members.

GL2. EXCEPTIONAL COMMUNITY BENEFITS

GOLD STATUS (OPTIONAL)

95Auditing 6. Gold Status

• What does the standard require? The project must benefit globally

poorer communities and the poorer, more vulnerable households and

individuals within them.

– This optional criterion requires innovative approaches that enable poorer

households to participate effectively in land-based carbon activities.

• Why? Carbon projects may be developed that have benefits for some

members of communities, but not necessarily the poorest.

GL2. EXCEPTIONAL COMMUNITY BENEFITS

GOLD STATUS (OPTIONAL)

96Auditing

Requirements:

• Located in a poor area (GL2.1)

• Benefits to 50% of households in the lower quartile (GL2.2)

• Benefit flow to poorer households (GL2.3)

• Identification of negative effects on the poor (GL2.4)

• Monitoring impacts on the poor (GL2.5)

6. Gold Status

Demonstrate that the project zone is in a low-human development country OR in an

administrative area of a medium of high human development country in which at least

50% of the population of that area is below the national poverty line.

GL2.1 LOCATED IN A POOR AREA

Auditing 6. Gold Status

© J.Henman

• The PDD should reference the UNDP Human Development Report

or official national statistics and/or censuses covering poverty in the

project zone

• The information should come from governmental or peer reviewed

sources and be up-to-date


GL2.1 LOCATED IN A POOR AREA

Common Pitfalls

Conformance

• The latest studies are discarded if they come after the conceptualization

or start of the project

Demonstrate that at least 50% of households within the lowest category of well-being

(e.g. poorest quartile) of the community are likely to benefit substantially from the

project

GL2.2 BENEFITS TO 50% HOUSEHOLDS

IN LOWER QUARTILE


• A description is not enough, the PDD should quantify the most in need

group, detailing the number of households in the community that are

affected by the project activities

• The PDD should show that a clear wealth ranking process has been

used to disaggregate stakeholders


GL2.2 BENEFITS TO 50% HOUSEHOLDS

IN LOWER QUARTILE

Common Pitfalls

Conformance

• The indicators chosen to reflect the poorer-quartile are not correctly

identified

• Further socioeconomic stratification within an already low-wealth

stakeholder group has not been conducted.

Demonstrate that any barriers or risks that might prevent benefits going to poorer

households have been identified and addressed in order to increase the probable flow

of benefits to poorer households.

GL2.3 BENEFIT FLOW TO POORER HOUSEHOLDS


• Identify benefit barriers through stakeholder interviews and

literature

• Perform a risk-benefit analysis for poorer households

• Describe the measures implemented to increase benefits to poorer

households


GL2.3 BENEFIT FLOW TO POORER HOUSEHOLDS

Common Pitfalls

Conformance

• The stakeholders are not aware of the risks impending on their benefits

Demonstrate that measures have been taken to identify any poorer and more

vulnerable households and individuals whose well-being or poverty may be negatively

affected by the project, and that the project design includes measures to avoid any

such impacts. Where negative impacts are unavoidable, demonstrate that they will be

effectively managed.

GL2.4 IDENTIFICATION OF NEGATIVE EFFECTS

ON THE POOR


• Demonstrate that the poor and vulnerable households have been

identified through participatory processes

• Clearly justify the reasons negative impacts are unavoidable


GL2.4 IDENTIFICATION OF NEGATIVE EFFECTS

ON THE POOR

Common Pitfalls

Conformance

• Impacts have been only been minimized and not avoided

• Not all stakeholder groups have been consulted

Demonstrate that community impact monitoring will be able to identify positive and

negative impacts on poorer and more vulnerable groups. The social impact monitoring

must take a differentiated approach that can identify positive and negative impacts on

poorer households and individuals and other disadvantaged groups, including women.

GL2.5 MONITORING IMPACTS ON THE POOR


• Evidence and justification of how the variables chosen to be monitored

will reflect project impacts on poorer and more vulnerable groups


GL2.5 MONITORING IMPACTS ON THE POOR

Common Pitfalls

Conformance

• The variables chosen do not disaggregate between the different

classes of stakeholder groups

GENERAL

• See the hyperlinks provided in the relevant sections of the tools and techniques

section of this presentation!

• Also see:

– Richards, M. and Panfil, S.N. 2011. Social and Biodiversity Impact Assessment (SBIA)

Manual for REDD+ Projects: Part 1 – Core Guidance for Project Proponents.

Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance, Forest Trends, Fauna & Flora

International, and Rainforest Alliance. Washington, DC. Available at: www.climate-

standards.org

– Richards, M. 2011. Social and Biodiversity Impact Assessment (SBIA) Manual for

REDD+ Projects: Part 2 – Social Impact Assessment Toolbox. Climate, Community

& Biodiversity Alliance and Forest Trends with Rainforest Alliance and Fauna &

Flora International. Washington, DC. Available at: www.climate-standards.org

– CCBA. 2008. Climate, Community & Biodiversity Project Design Standards Second

Edition. CCBA, Arlington, VA. December, 2008. At: www.climate-standards.org

108

http://www.climate-standards.org/



FURTHER RESOURCES ON:

STAKEHOLDER DIFFERENTIATION

• CARE, 2002. Household Livelihood Security Assessments. A Toolkit for

Practitioners, Prepared for the PHLS Unit by: TANGO International Inc., Tucson,

Arizona 2002, US.

http://pqdl.care.org/Practice/HLS%20Assessment%20-

%20A%20Toolkit%20for%20Practitioners.pdf

This publication outlines a useful process for carrying out stakeholder

differentiation in project design

109

http://pqdl.care.org/Practice/HLS Assessment - A Toolkit for Practitioners.pdf


DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

• Schreckenberg, K., Camargo, I., Withnall, K., Corrigan, C., Franks, P., Roe, D., Scherl, L. M. and Richardson, V. (2010) Social Assessment of Conservation Initiatives: A review of rapid methodologies, Natural Resource Issues No. 22. IIED, London. Available at: www.iied.org

This publication outlines all of the main concepts discussed in the tools and techniques section of this presentation and highlights pros and cons of different approaches

• CARE, 2002. Household Livelihood Security Assessments. A Toolkit for Practitioners, Prepared for the PHLS Unit by: TANGO International Inc., Tucson, Arizona 2002, US. http://pqdl.care.org/Practice/HLS%20Assessment%20-%20A%20Toolkit%20for%20Practitioners.pdf

• Catley, A., Burns, J., Adebe, D. & Suji, O. 2007. Participatory Impact Assessment. A Guide for Practitioners. Feinstein International Center, Tufts University. Medford, USA. http://www.entwicklung.at/uploads/media/Feinstein_Guide_Participatory_Impact_10_21_01.pdf

This publication gives a useful introduction to participatory approaches to social impact assessment

• PROFOR, 2008. Poverty Forests Linkages Toolkit. Program on Forests, World Bank, Washington, DC http://www.profor.info/profor/node/103

This series of publications gives a detailed introduction to concepts and tools for best practice social impact assessment linked to forestry projects110

http://www.iied.org/

http://pqdl.care.org/Practice/HLS Assessment - A Toolkit for Practitioners.pdf

http://www.entwicklung.at/uploads/media/Feinstein_Guide_Participatory_Impact_10_21_01.pdf

http://www.profor.info/profor/node/103

FURTHER RESOURCES ON: INDICATORS

• Schreckenberg, K., Camargo, I., Withnall, K., Corrigan, C., Franks, P., Roe, D., Scherl, L. M.

and Richardson, V. (2010) Social Assessment of Conservation Initiatives: A review of rapid

methodologies, Natural Resource Issues No. 22. IIED, London. Available at: www.iied.org

This publication includes a discussion of different types of indicators and

how they can be applied in social impact assessment

• Richards, M. & Panfil, S.N. 2010. Manual for Social Impact Assessment of Land-Based

Carbon Projects. Version 1. Forest Trends, Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance,

Rainforest Alliance and Fauna & Flora International. Washington, DC. Available at:

www.climate-standards.org

This manual gives useful examples of many different indicator frameworks

and outlines some useful indicators specifically for carbon projects (pg 95)

111

http://www.iied.org/



PROJECTIONS AND CAUSAL MODELS

• Evans, K., Velarde, S.J., Prieto, R.P., Rao, S.N., Sertzen, S., Davila, K., Cronkleton, P. and de Jong, W. 2006. Field guide to the future: four ways for communities to think ahead. CIFOR, ASB, ICRAF, Nairobi. http://www.asb.cgiar.org/PDFwebdocs/Evans-et-al-2006-Field-guide-to-the-future.pdf

This guide outlines useful tools for working with communities to project the impacts of development projects

• Wollenberg, E., Edmunds, D., Buck, L. 2000. Anticipating change: scenarios as a tool for adaptive forest management: a guide. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/acm/methods/fs.html

This guide outlines useful approaches for constructing scenarios of the social impacts of forestry projects

• Maack, J.N. 2001. Scenario analysis: a tool for task managers. From social analysis: Selected tools and techniques. Social Development Papers Number 36. The World Bank, Washington DC. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTSOCIALDEV/Resources/31773941167940794463/ScenarioAnalysisMaack.pdf

This guide outlines useful approaches for constructing scenarios of the social impacts of forestry projects

112


http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/acm/methods/fs.html

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTSOCIALDEV/Resources/31773941167940794463/ScenarioAnalysisMaack.pdf

PHOTO COPYRIGHT AND RE-USE

113

• All photos used in training materials are copyright to Jenny Henman and/or Leo Peskett

• Written permission is required for their re-use from Jenny Henman

• Any re-use must acknowledge on the photo Jenny Henman and/or Leo Peskett as per the

current copyright

ccbs v2 community - amazon web services · ©2011 rainforest alliance ccb ... includes cultural...

Documents