Skip to Main Navigation

Social assessment in World Bank and GEF-funded biodiversity conservation projects : case studies from India, Ecuador, and Ghana (English)

This report analyzes the use of the social assessment (SA) in three areas of the world and looked at key social and participation issues which are relevant across regions. The three cases are the India Ecodevelopment Project, Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Project, and Ghana Coastal Wetland Management Project. The report opens with a summary of the salient environmental and project design features and key social issues in each of the three case studies (section 2). It then turns to a discussion of the SA process itself (Section 3). The section deals with the institutional and financial arrangements for conducting the SAs, the various methods and tools used in the SAs, and how the SA findings were operationally incorporated into the overall project design and concept. Then the report describes the key findings of the SAs and their relevance to the design and implementation of the projects (Section 4). The report concludes with a set of recommendations for improving Bank/Global Environmental Facility (GEF) project performance through the more systematic incorporation and operationalization of SAs and participation (Section 5). Finally Section 6 provides a summary of the study's findings and recommendations.

Details

  • Author

    Cruz, Maria Concepcion J. Davis, Shelton H.

  • Document Date

    1997/02/28

  • Document Type

    Departmental Working Paper

  • Report Number

    18176

  • Volume No

    1

  • Total Volume(s)

    1

  • Country

    Ghana,

    Ecuador,

    India,

  • Region

    Africa, Latin America & Caribbean, South Asia,

  • Disclosure Date

    2010/07/01

  • Doc Name

    Social assessment in World Bank and GEF-funded biodiversity conservation projects : case studies from India, Ecuador, and Ghana

  • Keywords

    project design and implementation;environmental need;social point of view;annual population growth rate;rights to land;species of plant;children and youth;impact of land;amount of land;conservation planning process;biodiversity conservation planning;land tenure reform;wastewater treatment plant;claims to land;political decision making;body of information;mobility of population;biodiversity conservation efforts;management of bank;access to land;approach to biodiversity;high population density;management of resources;variety of habitats;stakeholder participation;population pressure;social issue;local group;protected area;human demography;wage labor;ethnic group;Conflict Resolution;property right;social surveys;local ngo;social pressure;census data;social diversity;park officials;buffer zone;cultural dimension;tiger reserve;coastal towns;indigenous people;social factor;Indigenous Peoples;local stakeholder;human settlement;cultural practice;park staff;preparation documents;urban population;Natural Resources;seasonal migrant;ecological boundary;tribal people;commercial purpose;petroleum companies;study of management;subsistence agriculture;human migration;economic study;cultural factor;government use;indigenous population;structured learning;Social Assessment;asiatic lion;site survey;financial arrangement;civil works;participation strategy;ethnic conflict;institutional mechanism;capacity strengthening;national environmental;adaptive management;continuous process;socioeconomic survey;coastal wetland;customary practice;social circumstances;Economic Studies;social need;demographic profile;lowland rainforest;population figures;cultural diversity;socio-economic status;migrant population;ethnic affiliation;adaptive strategy;ethnic rivalry;tourist attraction;local participation;local leadership;community support;traditional authority;population estimate;participatory tool;lagoon area;large population;resource extraction;ethnic diversity;wetland ecosystems;ethnic community;fish inside;regional population;commercial farmer;logging operations;seasonal movements;demographic issue;economic diversity;tribal population;harvest activity;population movement;socio-economic survey;village average;investment fund;resource access;reciprocal commitment;demographic pressure;livelihood group;cultural influence;main road;park fee;awareness program;traditional line;ethnic grouping;indigenous group;high diversity;public awareness;indigenous communities;indigenous community;institutional set-up;national index;commercial interests;population profile;legal basis;boundary conflicts;historical land;animal species;ancestral land;local population;adequate consideration;conservation area;livelihood strategy;consultative workshop;affected communities;management intervention;grazing right;provincial authority;private company;social program;secondary information;village development;alternative livelihood;park managers;small-scale miner;human population;measures of population;evaluation activity;non-governmental organization;natural selection;field visits;plant life;biodiversity profile;social scientist;support for population;ecological significance;outreach activity;wetland site;natural habitat;global biodiversity;administrative aspects;conflict management;tropical lowland;social group;donor agencies;conservation requirements;montane grassland;site preparation;development thinking;high altitude;demand site;population group;social situation;case studied;conservation law;local capacity;park authority;traditional knowledge;ranking techniques;fuelwood collection;Dispute Settlement;grazing land;longer distance;conservation biodiversity;land use;productivity loss;traditional village;tie in;cash crop;social acceptability;project execution;management structure;administrative autonomy;firewood collection;biological heritage;data gathering;institutional factor;nature tourism;social sense;local resident;habitat survey;village participation;extensive use;historical photographs

Downloads

COMPLETE REPORT

Official version of document (may contain signatures, etc)

  • TXT*
  • Total Downloads** :
  • Download Stats
  • *The text version is uncorrected OCR text and is included solely to benefit users with slow connectivity.

Citation

Cruz, Maria Concepcion J. Davis, Shelton H.

Social assessment in World Bank and GEF-funded biodiversity conservation projects : case studies from India, Ecuador, and Ghana (English). Environment Department working papers ; no. 43. Social assessment series*Social Development papers ; no. SDP 15 Washington, D.C. : World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/844421468746690884/Social-assessment-in-World-Bank-and-GEF-funded-biodiversity-conservation-projects-case-studies-from-India-Ecuador-and-Ghana