International Lessons of Experience and Best Practice in Participatory Monitoring in Extractive Industry Projects
In the last decade, extractive companies, project-impacted communities and stakeholders have developed increased skills and knowledge in monitoring procedures. Numerous experiences have raised awareness and supported the assertion that multi-party participation in environmental monitoring provides a unique opportunity to receive timely contributions and feedback which in turn result in the overall improvement of the monitoring process. Better social and environmental monitoring and evaluation contribute significantly to improve relationships, to reduce social tensions, and to the adoption of preventive measures to manage conflicts.
This is intended as an easy-to-use toolkit for understanding men’s and women’s differentiated access to the resources and opportunities associated with artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) and how they are affected by ASM. The Toolkit was produced by the Oil, Gas, and Mining Policy Unit (SEGOM) of the World Bank, through the generous support of the World Bank’s Gender Action Plan.
This document introduces considerations and recommendations for oil and gas development in coastal environments. It highlights key issues for decisionmakers and their advisors, project managers and HSE professionals in planning, designing, impact-assessing and managing oil and gas activities in these areas.
When a mining company seeks to embark on a project in indigenous territories, a clash of cultures is inevitable. That clash need not be violent, however, and neither need it be irreconcilable. Yet managing your way to a positive outcome demands a deft hand and a patient spirit. Neither attribute is traditionally associated with the mining industry. There can be a higher level of distrust that even companies with good intentions can struggle to establish a common understanding. Often companies get off on the wrong foot. In the past there’s been a headlong rush towards getting to a point of agreement without really understanding the importance of building sound relationships early on.
For the rapidly urbanising developing world, safe and affordable water is key to health and livelihoods, as well as meeting the Millennium Development Goals. But providing it demands innovative models. Where the context allows and the approach is appropriate, private sector involvement can generate win-win outcomes. Poor people can gain access to high-quality, affordable services, and companies can gain access to new and profitable business opportunities. Two examples of innovative ‘private’ water suppliers are the Manila Water Company’s Water for the Poor Communities (TPSB) programme, and the Water & Sanitation for the Urban Poor (WSUP) partnership. Both have a multisector approach to service expansion and provision, including partnerships with local authorities; strong community involvement in selecting, designing and operating options; appropriate service levels to reduce costs; and a flexible range of services. Many elements of these models are also replicable.
Payments for watershed services (PWS) are an increasingly popular conservation and water management tool in developing countries. Some schemes are thriving, and are pro-poor. Others are stalling or have only mixed success. Most rely on public or donor finance; and other sources of funding are unlikely to play a significant role any time soon. In part, financing PWS schemes remains a challenge because the actual evidence for their effectiveness is still scanty — it is hard to prove that they actually work to benefit both livelihoods and environments. Getting more direct and concrete data on costs and benefits will be crucial to securing the long-term future of PWS schemes.
This publication, produced in collaboration with WWF Southern Africa, looks at how community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) can inform and contribute to climate change adaptation at the community level, specifically to community-based adaptation (CBA) to climate change. It provides a framework for analysing the two approaches at conceptual and practical levels. Using case studies from southern Africa, the publication demonstrates the synergies between CBA and CBNRM, most important of which are the adaptation co-benefits between the two. While local incentives have driven community action in CBNRM, it is the evolution of an enabling environment in the region, in the form of institutions, policies, capacity and collaboration which characterises the scaling up of CBNRM to national and regional levels.
This study was therefore commissioned to examine the interaction between social funds and decentralization in seven countries at different stages of decentralization: Bolivia and Honduras (advanced decentralization), and Peru and Zimbabwe (some decentralization) and Cambodia, Malawi and Zambia (little or no decentralization). It explores the relationships between social funds, decentralization and local governance. Specifically, it seeks: (i) to identify a range of issues for improving local development that are relevant for social funds and decentralization; (ii) to discuss and analyze research findings based on field work in the seven country cases; and (iii) to present conclusions that inform the debate on social funds and decentralization, and provide some guidance to policymakers and program managers on important issues and different policy options.
This book contains the global standard for ‘water footprint assessment’ as developed and maintained by the Water Footprint Network (WFN). It covers a comprehensive set of definitions and methods for water footprint accounting. It shows how water footprints are calculated for individual processes and products, as well as for consumers, nations and businesses. It also includes methods for water footprint sustainability assessment and a library of water footprint response options.
The purpose of this Handbook is to strengthen awareness about M&E, engage interest in M&E, and to clarify what it entails, specifically for BEE practitioners. To date, attention has been paid to measuring the delivery and performance of BEE programs, for example by monitoring program processes, activities and outputs. However, evaluating the benefits that have arisen as a result of development interventions has been much less robust and to a large extent has relied on assessments of outputs rather than focusing on outcomes and impacts.