Suchergebnisse

(WHIASU) A basic guide to conducting a HIA. 1. Health impact assessment is a tool that can help organisations to assess the possible consequences of their decisions on people۪s health and well-being, thereby helping to develop more integrated policies and programmes. 2. This document has been developed as a practical guide to health impact assessment. It is designed to meet the needs of a variety of organisations by explaining the concept, the process and its flexibility, and by providing templates that can be adjusted to suit. 3. The Welsh Assembly Government is committed to developing the use of health impact assessment in Wales as a part of its strategy to improve health and wellbeing and to reduce health inequalities. This practical guide has been prepared by the Welsh Health Impact Assessment Support Unit, which was established by the Welsh Assembly Government to encourage and support organisations and groups in Wales to use the approach. 4. The development and use of health impact assessment will contribute to the ongoing development and implementation of local health, social care and wellbeing strategies, which is a joint statutory responsibility for Local Health Boards and local authorities. It can also contribute to Community Strategies which, given their overarching nature and breadth and depth, can address social, economic and environmental determinants of health, and to the implementation of Communities First, the Welsh Assembly Government۪s crosscutting regeneration programme. 5. The development of Health Challenge Wales as the national focus for improving health in Wales reinforces efforts to prevent ill health. Tools such as health impact assessment can help organisations and groups in all sectors to identify ways in which they can help people to improve their health.

How can governments and companies be jointly empowered to have a positive impact on the sustainable development goals? The current economic system is largely geared towards increasing economic growth. But this could come at the expense of rising social inequality and environmental degradation.This paper examines the link between economic system outcomes and corporate sustainability outcomes. We provide evidence that governments and companies can reinforce each other in their pursuit of sustainable development. Sustainable development is based on three pillars: economic, social and environmental. These pillars should be assessed and balanced in an integrated way. An impact economy, in which governments and companies balance profit and impact, is best placed to achieve the sustainable development goals.

This report takes stock of the market for impact investing and examines the conditions that would allow the market to grow and realize its potential. Historically, there have always been investors who cared about more than just financial returns. Governments and philanthropists, for example, have set up investment vehicles with mandates to promote social and environmental goals. Over the last decade, impact investing has gained prominence as an approach to investment that aims to achieve both financial returns and social or environmental goals.1 This has created a dynamic but somewhat disorganized market of diverse participants, standards, and concepts. Although still small, the market is attracting considerable interest, and it has the potential to increase in scale, and thereby contribute to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris climate goals.

This piece interrogates and problematises the notion of impact, with particular reference to ethnomusicology and to university music pedagogy more broadly. Following a brief overview of ethnomusicology's historical engagement with matters of impact, I ask how we might account for not only the consequences of our own research but also the work of those we study and collaborate with in the terms required by UK government and funding council agendas. The piece began life as a contribution to a round table at the British Forum for Ethnomusicology conference 'The Impact of Ethnomusicology' in 2010.

Substantiating cause and effect is one of the great conundrums for those aiming to have a social impact, be they an NGO, social impact investment fund, or multinational corporation. All face the same quandary: how do you know whether, or how, you contributed to an observed social change? A wide range of impact evaluation methodologies exist to address this need, ranging from informal feedback loops to highly elaborate surveys. But generating useful and credible information in a timely and cost-effective way remains an elusive goal, particularly for organizations working in complex, rapidly evolving and diverse contexts. Attributing Development Impact brings together responses to this challenge using an innovative impact evaluation approach called the Qualitative Impact Protocol (QuIP). This is a transparent, flexible and relatively simple set of guidelines for collecting, analysing and sharing feedback from intended beneficiaries about significant drivers of change in their lives. Innovative features include the use of 'blindfolded' interviewing to mitigate pro-project bias, and the application of a flexible coding system to make analysis and reporting faster and more transparent. The QuIP has now been used in 18 countries (including Ethiopia, India, Malawi, Mexico, Tanzania, Uganda and UK) with activities to promote food security, rural livelihoods, factory working conditions, medical training, community empowerment and microcredit for house improvement. This book includes comprehensive 'how to' QuIP guidelines and practical insights based on case studies from these countries into how to address the numerous methodological challenges thrown up by impact evaluation. Essential reading for evaluation specialists within NGOs, governments and donor agencies; social impact investors; community development practitioners; and researchers and students interested in evaluation methodologies.

This deliverable describes the ACTION impact assessment methodology, the co-design process followed for its development and how it will be applied to CS projects and to ACTION overall. The ACTION impact assessment methodology considers scientific, social, economic and political impacts; it links CS impacts to EU Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and considers also the potential contributions to MORRI indicators. Its aim is to support the ACTION consortium, but also CS managers and researchers working on the benefits of CS, by providing a multi-dimensional, flexible and adaptable framework to be used in their work. This framework is under usage at the time of writing as an internal tool for assessing ACTION's pilots and will be regularly improved and updated in the next months of the project by taking on board feedback coming from its application. It is complementary with D6.2 which offers data gathering instruments to be used in the actual application of the methodology here described (accessible here: https://zenodo.org/record/3968460#.XyQRCB1S-u5 DOI 10.5281/zenodo.3968459). .

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) became law January 1, 1970, while the California Environmental Quality Act was adopted on September 18 of the same year. NEPA established specific action-forcing procedures for implementing the policy; created the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQA); fostered development of indices of environmental quality; and provided for an annual CEQA report of progress. Section 102(2)(C) is the most renowned portion of NEPA. It requires the preparation of detailed written statements of environmental impacts, including alternative actions and their impacts. Section 102(2)(A) requires federal agencies to implement the integrated use of natural and social sciences and environmental design arts in reviewing environmental problems. The California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 was amended substantially in 1972 as a result of the Friends of Mammoth Decision by the State Supreme Court. CEQA requires that guidelines for the preparation of environmental impact reports shall be adopted by the State Resources Agency and followed by all state and local government entities regulating activities of private individuals, corporations, and public agencies which are found to affect the quality of the environment. CEQA defines environment as the physical conditions within the area which will be affected by a proposed project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise, objects of historic or aesthetic significance.

The ultimate measure of aid effectiveness is how aid affects the lives of poor people in developing countries. The huge literature on aid's macroeconomic impact has remarkably little to say on this topic, and less still in terms of practical advice to government officials and aid administrators on how to improve development effectiveness. But there is an expanding toolbox of approaches to impact evaluation at the field level which can answer both questions of whether aid works, and, properly applied, why it works (or not, as the case may be). This paper lays out these approaches, describing some of their uses by official development agencies. I advocate a theory-based approach to impact evaluation design, as this is most likely to yield policy insights. Academics need to engage in these real world issues and debates if their work is to help alleviate the plight of the world's poor.

The common effect model in program evaluation assumes that all treated individuals have the same impact from a program. Our paper contributes to the recent literature that tests and goes beyond the common effect model by investigating impact heterogeneity using data from the experimental evaluation of the Mexican conditional cash transfer program PROGRESA. Our analysis builds upon and extends that in Heckman, Smith and Clements (1997) and more recent studies of quantile treatment effects and random coefficient models. We find strong evidence of systematic (i.e. subgroup) variation in impacts in PROGRESA and modest evidence of heterogeneous impacts conditional on the systematic impacts. We find evidence against the perfect positive dependence assumption that underlies the interpretation of quantile treatment effects as impacts at quantiles of the untreated outcome distribution. Our paper concludes with a discussion of the policy relevance of our findings and of heterogeneous impacts more generally.

This thesis investigates how social purpose organisations collect and communicate information on their social impact through 'social impact accounting'. It seeks to understand how different logics shape the current practice of social impact accounting, and how this practice may be shaped by social investment and standardisation. Adopting a methodological approach based on Dewey's classical pragmatism, social impact accounting is studied through four sequential research stages using a qualitative, thematic approach. Empirically, this thesis draws from multiple data sources, including a systematic review of practice guides for social impact accounting, and interviews with professionals working as preparers and users of social impact accounting from social purpose organisations, philanthropic funding institutions, social investment firms, government, and specialist intermediaries. The data are used to map how different logics of accountability, accounting and evaluation manifest in the practice of social impact accounting. Perspectives from users and preparers are shown to be shaped predominantly by logics associated with resource acquisition and accountability to funders. However, this thesis also highlights a powerful stream of alternative logics that emphasise the role of social impact accounting in sharing knowledge and improving performance within organisations, as well as across the social purpose sector. These are shown to have different implications for the desired content and qualities of social impact accounts. A Social Impact Accounting Framework is developed from these findings and used to further analyse the emerging areas of social investment and standardisation. Social investors are found to have similar expectations of social impact accounting to preparers and users, and their use of social impact information is characterised as diverse and pragmatic. Further, in the context of a proposed standard, this thesis investigates the public interest of standardised social impact accounting and shows that the proposed standard (ED270) focuses on a limited part of the complex practice of social impact accounting, and raises questions about the appropriateness of government as a standard-setter in this context. Finally, this thesis concludes by showing that a failure of standards to account for the complexity of the social purpose sector risks unintended consequences and simply increases the already onerous and bureaucratic reporting requirements faced by social purpose organisations.

SIA developed alongside EIA in the early 1970s as a mechanism to consider the social impacts of planned interventions. The early understanding tended to limit the practical application of SIA to the project level, usually within the context of regulatory frameworks, and primarily considered only the direct negative impacts. However, like other types of impact assessment, SIA has evolved over time and has diverged considerably from EIA. Nowadays, SIA has widened its scope to become a "philosophy about development and democracy". Ideally SIA considers the pathologies, goals, and processes of development. In this broad understanding, it now focusses on the management of all social issues, intending to bring about a more sustainable and equitable biophysical and human environment. The SIA field conceives of "social" very broadly, basically meaning "anything that affects people and their communities". Thus, for example, all environmental impacts are also social impacts because people depend on the environment for their livelihoods as well as their physical and spiritual well-being. Social impact concepts include people's way of life, their culture, community, political systems, environment, health and well-being, personal and property rights, and their fears and aspirations. Formerly seen as a regulatory tool required by regulatory agencies but resented by proponents, SIA, for a variety of reasons, is now increasingly being embraced by corporations and used as an internal process for managing social issues. Such a shift towards corporate acceptance, of course, does not guarantee that SIA will always be done properly, or is able to adequately influence company operations. Several other shifts have been observed: greater consideration of benefits; moving towards developing and implementing Social Impact Management Plans; communities themselves actively commissioning, or doing, their own SIA studies; SIA playing an important part in ensuring "free, prior and informed consent" and gaining a "social licence to operate". Health issues have a central place in SIA. Many of the social impacts of projects could also be described as health impacts, and all health impacts would be regarded as social impacts in SIA. In SIA, health impacts are considered amongst a wide range of impacts on people and communities. SIA practitioners are supposed to look from an integrated perspective. Arguably, this means that the determinants of health should be addressed when SIA is carried out properly. Nevertheless, SIA guidelines do not typically require a detailed analysis of the origins of, or pathways to, specific health conditions. There is, however, a strong awareness of indirect effects and cumulative effects. In actual SIA practice, the approach used highly depends on the type of policy, plan or project being considered, as well as on the legal and cultural context, on client requirements, and on the commitment of the individual practitioner or consultancy. The SIA case studies considered in this chapter usually discussed the broader determinants of health but did not necessarily recognize them as such. The pathways from social impacts to health, and the linkages between health and social impacts, were not explicitly part of the analysis. Overall, the input of health expertise into SIAs seemed to be lacking. However, given the close connections between the HIA and SIA approaches, more cooperation and cross-fertilization between these two types of impact assessment can be expected in the future.

The purpose of this Guidance Note is to provide advice to various stakeholders about what is expected in good practice social impact assessment (SIA) and social impact management processes, especially in relation to project development. Project development refers to dams, mines, oil and gas drilling, factories, ports, airports, pipelines, electricity transmission corridors, roads, railway lines and other infrastructure including large-scale agriculture, forestry and aquaculture projects. This Guidance Note builds on IAIA's (2003) International Principles for Social Impact Assessment. While the International Principles outline the overarching understandings of the SIA field, including the expected values of the profession, this document seeks to provide advice on good practice in the undertaking and appraisal of SIAs and the adaptive management of projects to address the social issues. As a statement of good and sometimes leading practice, not all the information in this document will necessarily be applicable in every situation – people utilising this information will need to establish for themselves what is appropriate in each particular context. The intended users of this document include: • SIA Practitioners/Consultants who want to know how their practice compares with international best practice; • Project Developers/Proponents (private sector or government) to assist them in evaluating SIA consultants and in knowing what to expect from consultants; • Regulatory agencies in terms of judging the quality and acceptability of SIA reports and in determining what procedures and expectations will be; • Social specialists in the Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs), such as the World Bank, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the African Development Bank (AfDB), European Bank of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the European Investment Bank (EIB), and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB); • Social staff in other financial institutions, especially Equator Principles banks; • Development cooperation agencies; • Government planning agencies; • Communities and local peoples; • Civil society organizations; • People responsible for SIA regulatory frameworks.

In Aotearoa New Zealand there is a strong link between poverty and certain impacts such as physical health problems, psychological wellbeing, housing, education, food insecurity and social status. These impacts are closely connected, one to the other. For example, the high cost of housing can result in less money for food. It may also result in people living in unhealthy accommodation such as garages and overcrowded houses. The impacts of policies to deal with the Covid-19 pandemic are a new phenomenon that is causing deep concern for those on low incomes.

This document reports the results of the intermediate impact assessment of the ACTION project. It focuses on the results achieved by the ACTION pilots in the first half of the project. Following the ACTION impact assessment methodology, the main areas of impact considered are: scientific, social, economic, political and environmental. The transformative potential of the pilots is also considered together with their potential contribution to UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The report describes the impact analysis of nine pilots at aggregated level firs and then one by one. Averall ACTIOn and its pilot reported many and interesting results and the perspective in terms of impact are positive. The areas of impact that score highest are the scientific and the social ones and promising results are observable also in terms of political impact.

The impact of GIS is inextricably linked to the reputation and credibility of its host organizations and of the people in leadership positions within GIS. At best this is a symbiotic relationship that is a win-win situation for all. Over and above the obvious benefit that GIS reaps from the established infrastructure of each of the host organizations, there are additional benefits. For example, The World Academy of Sciences (TWAS) as the host of GIS in Trieste, demonstrates its commitment to gender equality through its support for and commitment to GIS. Similarly, GIS leverages off the TWAS reputation, as well as the TWAS network and sphere of influence to expand the reach of its work beyond that of its regional focal points in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) and in Africa. The LAC regional focal point, located in FLACSO, the Latin American University of Postgraduate Studies, benefits from FLASCO's network across 16 Latin American countries, which facilitates collaboration with universities and research councils. The co-location of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Regional Chair of Women in S&T, with its focus on research and training in the field of gender and education is an added advantage. The value proposition of GIS LAC is the promotion of the integration of a gender lens perspective to higher education within a sustainable development framework. The Africa regional focal point, hosted by the Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf), benefits from ASSAf's credibility as a science academy and the networks that it has established across the continent, including with academia and government. The value proposition of GIS is to bring into sharper focus the importance of gender considerations in Academy membership, activities and products. In this report, the impact of GIS will be considered under four headings: 1. Development of strategies/policies 2. Contribution to knowledge production 3. Contribution to capacity development 4. Building a reputation ; Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida)