Social Value, Climate Change and Environmental Stewardship: Insights from Theory and Practice 3031231449, 9783031231445

Table of contents :
Acknowledgements
Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction – Social Value and Social Return on Investment: Theory and Practice
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Social Value
1.2.1 Measuring Social Value: Social Return on Investment (SROI)
1.2.1.1 Challenges and Opportunities
1.2.1.2 SROI in Practice: Indigenous Peoples and Environmental Stewardship
1.3 The Chapters
1.3.1 Social Value, SROI and Measurements
1.3.2 Social Value in Practice
References
Part I: Social Value, SROI and Measurements
Chapter 2: A Critical Perspective on the Measurement of Social Value Through SROI
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Social Return on Investment
2.2.1 The SROI Framework
2.2.2 General Approaches to Valuating and Monetizing Social Value
2.3 Correctness and Appropriateness of SROI
2.3.1 The Correctness of the SROI Framework
2.3.2 The Appropriateness of the SROI Framework
2.3.2.1 Comparability
2.3.2.2 Subjectivity
2.3.2.3 Legitimacy
2.3.2.4 Resource Utility
2.4 Advantages and Benefits
2.5 Practical Cases
2.5.1 Social Enterprises Preserving Cultural Heritage
2.5.2 The Greenlink Project
2.6 Conclusion
References
Chapter 3: Measuring and Managing Social Value: Myths and Opportunities
3.1 Introduction
3.2 The Imperative for Impact Management
3.3 The Principles of Social Value and Impact Management
3.3.1 Origins
3.3.2 Purpose
3.3.3 The Foundations of Impact
3.3.4 Principles in Practice
3.3.5 Responding to What Matters for Stakeholders
3.3.6 Qualitative Data
3.3.6.1 Involving Stakeholders and Identifying Relevant Outcomes
3.3.7 Quantitative Data
3.3.7.1 Amount of Changes
3.3.7.2 Duration of Changes
3.3.7.3 Relative Importance of Changes: Valuation
3.3.7.4 Estimating Contribution to Changes
3.3.8 Transparency and Verification
3.4 Challenges with Solutions
3.4.1 Challenge Number 1: Impact Measurement Needs to Be Viewed as an Investment Not a Cost
3.4.2 Challenge Number 2: Impact Management Requires People and Organizations to Have the Necessary Capacities
3.4.3 Challenge Number 3: We Are Not Held to Account for Our Impacts on People and the Planet to the Same Extent as Our Financial Impacts
3.5 The Next Step: Managing for Impacts
3.6 Conclusions
References
Chapter 4: Advancing Gender Equity and Equality in Climate: Analyzing the Gender and Social Value of Climate Interventions
4.1 Introduction: The Importance of Gender Equity and Equality in Climate
4.2 The Importance of Social Value in Promoting Gender Equity in Climate
4.2.1 Social Value Helps Us Understand the True Impact of Climate Interventions, Which Affect Women and Men Differently – But It Is Often Not Applied Across the Board
4.2.2 Even When There Are Social Value Considerations, a Gender Lens Is Often Missing
4.2.3 Using Social Value to Catalyze Gender Equity and Climate Action
4.3 Integrating Social Value and Gender Analysis
4.3.1 Definitions of Social Value Analysis and Gender Analysis: The Principles of Social Value
4.3.2 Integrating Social Value and Gender Analysis
4.3.3 Analyzing the Gender and Social Value of Climate Interventions
4.3.4 Example Outcomes and Indicators
4.4 Examples Which Analyze the Gender and Social Value of Climate Interventions to Advance Gender Equity
4.4.1 Used in Programme Design/Strategy Development
4.4.2 Used in Project Evaluation
4.4.3 Used at a Country Level in Policy Design
4.5 How to Further Gender and Social Value
References
Chapter 5: Social Value During a Pandemic: Insights from Brazil
5.1 Introduction
5.2 COVID-19: The Pandemic in Brazil
5.3 Brazilian Inequality: Compounded Impacts from COVID-19 and Policy Interventions
5.3.1 COVID-19 and Inequality
5.3.2 Addressing Inequality Post-COVID-19
5.4 Brazilian Government During the Pandemic
5.5 Political Leadership Values and the Interaction with Social Value
5.6 The North Region as a “Laboratory” for the Federal Government
5.7 COVID-19 Epidemic: An Opportunity for Building a More Equal and Fair Society
5.8 Final Comments
References
Part II: Social Value in Practice
Chapter 6: Integrating Social Value in Landscape Planning: Experiences from Working with Indigenous Communities in Australia
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Healthy Country Planning: Community-Defined Values for Community-Led Management
6.3 Assessing Impacts of Development Options: Community-Based Development by Design
6.4 Case Study of Combined Use of Healthy Country Planning and Development by Design in Northern Australia: Nykina Mangala Area in Kimberley Region
6.5 Discussion: How Healthy Country Planning and Development by Design Can Be Used to Enable Social Value
6.6 Lessons for Practice and Future Research Needs
6.7 Conclusions
References
Chapter 7: Lighting the Path Forward: Understanding Social Value from Indigenous Fire (Qwen) Stewardship
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Context
7.3 Community Goals from Indigenous Fire Stewardship: What Is Social Value in This Context?
7.4 External Goals: Private and Public Funders
7.4.1 Area Stewarded
7.4.2 People Employed and Trained
7.4.3 Planning, Vision and Program Sustainability
7.4.4 Partnerships and Knowledge Mobilization
7.5 Discussion and Conclusions
References
Chapter 8: Social Forestry in Indonesia: Fragmented Values, Progress, Contradictions, and Opportunities
8.1 Introduction
8.2 The Current SF Program in Indonesia, Issues and Challenges
8.2.1 The National SF Program
8.2.2 Governance and the Institutionalization of Social Forestry
8.2.3 Actors and Institutions
8.2.4 Issues and Challenges
8.2.4.1 Legal and Bureaucratic Complexity: More than Forestry Policy and the Need for Intermediaries
8.2.4.2 Too High Expectations: What Is Success for Social Forestry?
8.2.4.3 Hollow Groups and How Communal Is SF?
8.2.4.4 Who Pays? Financing SF and Village Governance
8.2.4.5 Responsibilization and Territorialization: In Whose Interest Is the SF Program?
8.3 Changing Relations, Changing Values
8.4 Concluding Remarks
References
Chapter 9: Final Conclusions – Social Value and Measuring It: Challenges, Opportunities, and Future Directions
9.1 Social Value: Promise and Realities
9.2 Future Directions
References

Citation preview

William Nikolakis Renata Moura da Veiga   Editors

Social Value, Climate Change and Environmental Stewardship: Insights from Theory and Practice

Social Value, Climate Change and Environmental Stewardship: Insights from Theory and Practice

William Nikolakis  •  Renata Moura da Veiga Editors

Social Value, Climate Change and Environmental Stewardship: Insights from Theory and Practice

Editors William Nikolakis Faculty of Forestry University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada

Renata Moura da Veiga Division of Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (DIIAV) National Institute for Space Research (INPE) São José dos Campos, São Paulo, Brazil

ISBN 978-3-031-23144-5    ISBN 978-3-031-23145-2 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23145-2 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Acknowledgements

This book emerged from the work of International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO) Working Party 6.10.01, entitled Social Return on Investment: Insights and Lessons for Forest Governance, coordinated by the editors. The editors thank Richard Robertson for reviewing and providing suggestions and improvements for the book. The editors thank all authors that contributed to the book chapters. The editors thank the Gathering Voices Society for supporting this work, and their supporters including the Real Estate Foundation of British Columbia, Intact Foundation and the Vancouver Foundation. Renata Moura da Veiga thanks São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) grant #2020/06470-2.

v

Contents

1

Introduction – Social Value and Social Return on Investment: Theory and Practice������������������������������������������������������    1 William Nikolakis and Renata Moura da Veiga

Part I Social Value, SROI and Measurements 2

A Critical Perspective on the Measurement of Social Value Through SROI����������������������������������������������������������������   13 Nadja Fugleberg Damtoft, Rainer Lueg, Dennis van Liempd, and Janni Grouleff Nielsen

3

Measuring and Managing Social Value: Myths and Opportunities������������������������������������������������������������������������   33 Adam Richards

4

Advancing Gender Equity and Equality in Climate: Analyzing the Gender and Social Value of Climate Interventions��������������������������������������������������������������������������   57 Bonnie Chiu, Linda Weisert, and Corina Campian

5

 Social Value During a Pandemic: Insights from Brazil������������������������   75 Marcos Kisil

Part II Social Value in Practice 6

Integrating Social Value in Landscape Planning: Experiences from Working with Indigenous Communities in Australia������������������������������������������������������������������������   91 David Hinchley, Frank Weisenberger, Damien Parriman, James Fitzsimons, and Mike Heiner

7

Lighting the Path Forward: Understanding Social Value from Indigenous Fire (Qwen) Stewardship��������������������������������������������  105 William Nikolakis and Russell Myers Ross vii

viii

Contents

8

 Social Forestry in Indonesia: Fragmented Values, Progress, Contradictions, and Opportunities��������������������������������������������������������  117 Moira Moeliono, Muhammad Alif K. Sahide, Indah Waty Bong, and Bimo Dwisatrio

9

Final Conclusions – Social Value and Measuring It: Challenges, Opportunities, and Future Directions ������������������������������  139 William Nikolakis

Chapter 1

Introduction – Social Value and Social Return on Investment: Theory and Practice William Nikolakis and Renata Moura da Veiga

1.1 Introduction Climate change, deforestation and ecological degradation. Social inequality, poverty, and food insecurity. The problems that confront humanity and our planet are growing, and solutions are complex. No longer are we under the illusion that economic growth, by itself, will solve these problems. Organizations across the world are mobilizing to tackle these social and ecological problems, and with this, our understanding of ‘impact’ and ‘value’ is transforming. This edited collection of chapters from across the world analyses the evolving concept of ‘social value’ and the approaches to identify, measure and report on social value. In addition to deepening our understanding of social value, we examine the concept of Social Return on Investment (SROI) – a common framework that improves the measurement and accounting of social  value, and integrates  social, environmental and economic aspects into evaluation (Nicholls et al. 2012). In particular, we explore social value and SROI in the context of gender, climate change, environmental stewardship, forest governance and Indigenous peoples, and learn from diverse voices from across the globe. The ambition of this work is to bring insight to theory and practice: illuminating the lessons, and the challenges and opportunities from social value and its evaluation, and with an overall goal of catalyzing and strengthening programs in practice to advance these important issues. W. Nikolakis (*) Gathering Voices Society, Vancouver, BC, Canada Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada e-mail: [email protected] R. M. da Veiga Division of Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (DIIAV) National Institute for Space Research (INPE), São José dos Campos, São Paulo, Brazil © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 W. Nikolakis, R. Moura da Veiga (eds.), Social Value, Climate Change and Environmental Stewardship: Insights from Theory and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23145-2_1

1

2

W. Nikolakis and R. M. da Veiga

This book has two parts, and is drawn from the work of an International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO) Working Party  on Social Return on Investment. The first part includes chapters that explore the concept of social value and the measures to evaluate social value, which includes SROI.  The chapters describe the evolution of social value and the challenges and opportunities for SROI, and provide guidance to practice, such as around gender analysis and the methods for involving people in the process  of evaluating impacts that matter to them. The second part of this book examines the application of social value and SROI in practice, with diverse cases from across the world, with particular attention on environmental stewardship and forest governance programs that typically involve Indigenous peoples and local communities. There has been much work in measuring and monetizing social value impact for environmental stewardship programs involving Indigenous peoples, with positive results shown for a range of social, health and wellbeing, cultural and economic outcomes – in addition to ecological outcomes. Our ambition is to share insights from these programs, with the goal of building awareness for,  and catalyzing  and strengthening these programs  across the globe. This introductory chapter explores the concept of social value, and examines the tools and methods for measuring social value in practice including the opportunities and challenges for SROI. This chapter then introduces and summarizes the different and diverse contributions to this book.

1.2 Social Value Organizations that work to produce social outcomes will inevitably want to understand their impact – or the social value produced – and those positive changes (if any) that interventions and efforts have produced (Arvidson et  al. 2013). Social value is often used where financial outcomes are not of primary importance, though still salient, and where the organization wants to track its performance over time (Lingane and Olsen 2004). Mook et al. (2015) describe social value as the “inputs or outputs that reflect the mission of a non-profit organization, which are not normally exchanged on the market” (p.  230). These outputs, or outcomes from the activities of non-profits, were traditionally documented through qualitative measures (i.e. interviews and narrative reports) – however, increasingly, organizations are documenting their Social Return on Investment (SROI), and quantifying these outcomes in dollar terms, to adopt a unit that can be easily understood and consistently compared, while also recognizing the different perceptions of value across cultures. The theory of change for understanding and measuring social value through SROI is that each dollar invested in an organization’s social mission should in theory generate social returns (or value) in excess of the dollars invested (costs) (Moody et al. 2015).

1  Introduction – Social Value and Social Return on Investment: Theory and Practice

3

1.2.1 Measuring Social Value: Social Return on Investment (SROI) SROI is defined as a framework for “understanding, measuring, and reporting, the social, economic and environmental value created by an intervention, programme, policy or organisation” (Banke-Thomas et al. 2015, p. 3). SROI can involve post-­ intervention assessments (evaluative), or pre- (forecasting)  – and Banke-Thomas et al. (2015) documented that most studies are evaluative, and produce a benefits-to-­ cost ratio, the SROI ratio – or the calculated value of social outcomes divided by the costs of producing these outcomes (Mook et al. 2015). There have been major concerns raised in the literature around collapsing social value into a ratio, with critics arguing it tells us little about the performance of an organisation, its stakeholders and context (Mook et al. 2015). SROI is used to “conceptualise, measure and communicate” the social value produced by organizations (Arvidson et al. 2013). SROI provides insight into whether an organisation is providing value for money in achieving its mission, and of the social and economic efficiency for intervention spending (Banke-Thomas et al. 2015). In the increasingly competitive ‘third sector’ of non-profit organizations, SROI provides evidence of the success of organizations in addressing social problems or advancing a public good – this can build trust in an organisation’s capacity to deliver outcomes and may strengthen their funding case (Ryan and Lyne 2008). However, despite what Moody et al. (2015) describe as the ‘buzz’ around SROI, they document that SROI remains underutilized, due largely to the complexity of calculating SROI, as well as the organizational challenges  in understanding SROI, the associated costs, and the limitations in capturing cultural and contextual particularities in these measures. 1.2.1.1 Challenges and Opportunities Mook et al. (2015) identified three key issues for measuring social value through SROI: (1) calculation issues, for instance, with many of the assumptions made around SROI being subjective, such as developing proxy market prices for monetizing social value; (2) field work issues, such as the scope of the social value analysis and who you engage and their skill-set in the assessment of the intervention, as well as the resources required to conduct a comprehensive SROI analysis; and (3) methodological issues, for instance, there are critiques around quantifying what cannot (and should not) be quantified (such as cultural or spiritual outcomes), or reducing information  on social value to numbers, which removes context and reduces  people’s experiences of social value to a number. In terms of calculation challenges, three are critical in terms of the reliability of SROI: assigning proxy prices to social value  (assigning a  price to  outcomes), accounting for ‘deadweight’ (the potential impact without the intervention), and ‘drop-off’ (the amount to which impacts decrease in value over time) (Mook et al. 2015; Moody et al. 2015). Ryan and Lyne (2008) documented some of the items

4

W. Nikolakis and R. M. da Veiga

used as proxies to monetize social value, including reductions in unemployment benefits for social programs, the costs of training and skills development, reductions in hospital visits and lost wages due to health problems, and social inclusion gains to society. There are obvious challenges in assigning values to these benefits, and whether these have in fact been delivered by the intervention (and for how long). Aside from these, Pathak and Dattani (2014) identified some basic calculation challenges, such as the fact that few studies and SROI analysis actually account for the impact of inflation and ignore overhead costs (which bloats social value claims), leading to critiques around the reliability of such measurements. According to Moody et al. (2015), field work to identify and understand social value can be complex within organizations, and expensive. Who leads the work and do they have the appropriate skills to document outcomes from the intervention? Which stakeholders and beneficiaries have their voices and perspectives represented in any analysis? Is there sufficient resources to cover the costs of generating SROI? Vluggen et al. (2020) also called for a focus on management and information systems to support SROI analysis in practice – creating efficient data monitoring and controls – but these can no doubt be costly for non-profit organizations to implement. For methodological issues, a shift towards more interpretivist approaches, rather than positivist or reductive methods, is critical according to Mook et al. (2015), who argued for looking beyond  the SROI ratio, by including stakeholder impact statements: a narrative report that captures the stories of those impacted by the interventions. These statements can combine social and financial data – but it is acknowledged these more qualitative reporting approaches can be time and resource intensive – and there remain questions around whose stories are prioritized  in such narratives. To provide richer insight, Mook et al. (2015) argued that longitudinal studies that include a broader  group of stakeholders, are critical for understanding social value performance over time, or what Beer and Micheli (2018) call a ‘human centred’ approach to social value and SROI, which Ruiz-Lozano et al. (2020) reflected can foster learning on organisational performance and impact, and potentially offers promise to strengthen organisational effectiveness over time. Banke-Thomas et al. (2015) called for more robust research designs and protocols in SROI analysis to enhance validity, including case controls, and pre- and post-intervention analysis. Confirming Mook and colleagues findings, they also emphasized the importance of multiple data sources and perspectives to enhance reliability and bringing richer insight into context. Nicholls et al. (2012) updated the seven principles for supporting SROI in practice, developed in 2009 by the same authors: (1) involve stakeholders in any analysis; (2) understand the changes (negative and positive) from any interventions; (3) value the things that matter (particularly those important to stakeholders); (4) only include what is material in any analysis; (5) do not overclaim impacts from activities; (6) be transparent in any assumptions and analysis; and (7) verify the results with stakeholders. Building on this, Moody et  al. (2015) concluded that it is the process of SROI analysis, rather than the end product (i.e. an SROI statement and ratio) that is most important for social value analysis – indeed, they call on those producing SROI to: (1) be transparent about their assumptions in any analysis; (2) be inclusive and to create systems to track who is involved and their data; and (3)

1  Introduction – Social Value and Social Return on Investment: Theory and Practice

5

account for deadweight and attribution (be realistic about what creates social value); (4) be conservative in estimations; (5) seek longitudinal data and revise the intervention according to this data; (6) provide sufficient resources and capabilities for effective SROI analysis; and (7) use technical methods but express any information simply, in ways accessible to a broad audience. 1.2.1.2 SROI in Practice: Indigenous Peoples and Environmental Stewardship The growth of environmental stewardship programs among Indigenous peoples has been well documented in Australia, a leader on this, and these programs have been shown to deliver positive health, wellbeing, education, employment, and cultural outcomes among Indigenous participants (Pert et al. 2020; Nikolakis et al. 2023). Pert et al. (2020) documented in Australia that some $462 million (Australian dollars) was invested in around 2600 land and sea stewardship projects between 2002 and 2012. The bulk of this funding was provided by federal government agencies and programs, and 13% was from private foundations. Most of the investments in programs are in remote parts of northern Australia with high Indigenous populations, and who also have important social, cultural, economic, livelihoods, environmental, and health and wellbeing needs. The positive  social and cultural outcomes  delivered by stewardship programs have been in addition to the ecological outcomes from this work, such as improved biodiversity (Nikolakis and Roberts 2020, 2021; Russell-Smith et  al. 2015), and reductions in wildfires and greenhouse gas emissions (da Veiga and Nikolakis 2022; Nikolakis et al. 2022; Russell-Smith et al. 2013). Measuring and tracking the social value on complex and multi-dimensional problems, such as Indigenous people’s wellbeing, has been an important public focus in Australia and Canada – yet the evaluation metrics are typically drawn from western perspectives (Pyle et al. 2018). Academic studies have monetized the SROI from investments in environmental stewardship involving Indigenous peoples: in Australia, Campbell et al. (2011) documented that the public health savings from Indigenous communities’ participation in environmental stewardship were around $268,000 (AUD) per year for each community. Following this, Campbell (2015, p. 623) concluded that “non-medical primary preventative health strategies  [like environmental stewardship] can be a cost-effective approach in addressing the Indigenous CD [chronic disease] burden and mitigation of the global chronic disease pandemic”. In Canada’s Northwest Territories, a 2016 SROI analysis reported better health and wellbeing as a material outcome and consistent theme in interviews with participants from the Lutsel K’e and Dehcho environmental stewardship programs (SVA 2016). Participants reported being more active and eating a healthier traditional subsistence diet after engaging in the program. Being on the land also provided mental benefits, and reduced stress among participants through reconnecting with land and water. The benefits extended to community members who also had increased access to traditional foods and felt an enhanced capacity for

6

W. Nikolakis and R. M. da Veiga

self-­determination (SVA 2016). The SROI analysis of this program calculated a social value return of $11.1 million (Canadian dollars) over an investment of $4.5 million into the program from 2009 to 2016, or a ratio of 2.5:1, meaning that for every dollar invested into the program some $2.50 was returned in social, economic, cultural and environmental value. The analysis also suggested that strengthening this investment in stewardship,  to support year-round and full-time work, would generate between $2.50 to $3.70 for every dollar of investment, and could support the development of a conservation-based economy in these communities. Arvidson et al. (2013) acknowledged that many SROI analyses and reports are developed for political purposes  – to secure long term public funding for social programs. In part, given the reliance on public funding, SROI analysis has strengthened the case for Indigenous stewardship programs – for instance, drawing from a growing evidence base of diverse outcomes, Australian Indigenous-led environmental stewardship programs have increased their funding over time (Pert et  al. 2020), and in 2021, the Canadian government committed $340 million dollars over five years to Indigenous-led stewardship programs.

1.3 The Chapters This book is divided into two parts. The first part examines the concept of social value and measuring this (i.e. SROI), and takes a theoretical lens to these concepts, including, exploring the role of gender in this context. The second part of the book examines the application of social value and SROI in practice – with lessons and insights from real world examples, and the focus is on environmental stewardship, particularly work involving Indigenous peoples.

1.3.1 Social Value, SROI and Measurements The first chapter by Nadja Damtoft and colleagues, entitled A Critical Perspective on the Measurement of Social Value through SROI, describes that a growing social concern is driving many organizations to produce information on their social and environmental performance. A common measurement approach is Social Return on Investment (SROI), which monetizes social value, and can reveal how efficient organizations are in creating social value. The chapter deepens insight into the limitations for SROI, including who provides the information for SROI, the availability of reliable and relevant proxies, appropriate time horizons and the use of ‘deadweight’ factors. SROI can be context dependent and subjective, making comparisons and benchmarking problematic, and creating legitimacy concerns. The authors offer caution in the use of SROI, suggesting its use depends on the context of each organisation and its activities – the application of SROI must be carefully thought through, particularly given the time and resources required for producing these analyses.

1  Introduction – Social Value and Social Return on Investment: Theory and Practice

7

Adam Richards in the second chapter entitled, Measuring and managing social value: Myths and opportunities, shows that measuring the impact for social value is important, and emphasizes a principled-approach to data collection that meaningfully involves stakeholders. Richards argues that organisations must involve those impacted by an organisation’s activities, so they can identify what is important to them so that it can be measured, and so the organisation can understand whether their impact is appropriate and meaningful. Richards observes that we are at a critical juncture globally, where broadening our understanding of ‘value’ is fundamental to our survival – he concludes that measuring social value and SROI are not enough though – we need to transform how we use (and consume) resources to optimize the wellbeing of all people and the planet. In the third chapter, Bonnie Chiu, Linda Weisert and Corina Campian examine the integration of gender analysis into social value and measurement. The chapter, entitled Advancing gender equity and equality in climate: Analysing the gender and social value of climate interventions, documents that gender analysis is typically treated as an after-thought in social value and SROI.  The authors identify social value measures and methods to advance gender equity, as well as the challenges and opportunities for integrating gender into these, with particular attention to climate change and conservation initiatives. The chapter concludes with recommendations for NGOs, foundations, the private sector, governments and multilateral institutions for advancing gender equity through social value. Marcos Kisil analyses the concept of social value in Brazil, in the chapter Social value during a pandemic: Insights from Brazil, where he documents how this concept evolved during the COVID-19 crisis and shaped the government’s response. Kisil describes the individual and collective forms of resilience that emerged during the pandemic; yet the government failed to protect those most vulnerable, and both during and after the recovery, inequality has widened in the country. He argues that more focus is required in Brazil on social value and for allowing those most vulnerable to have a stake in how social value is defined and measured.

1.3.2 Social Value in Practice The second part of this book  focuses on social value in practice, with particular attention on environmental stewardship and Indigenous peoples. David Hinchley and colleagues, in their chapter Integrating social value in landscape planning: Experiences from working with Indigenous communities in Australia, document how a Healthy Country Planning (HCP) approach, adapted from The Nature Conservancy’s Development by Design (DbD), has been an effective way to integrate the voices of Indigenous peoples in planning and development processes across northern Australia  – and to understand their perspectives of social value. HCP and DbD have increased the capacity of Indigenous peoples, enhancing their assessment of economic development options that impact their land and rights, supporting goal development, and catalyzing community engagement in land use

8

W. Nikolakis and R. M. da Veiga

decisions. The chapter emphasizes the importance  of structured planning processes with Indigenous peoples, to deepen understanding of social value and of the measures important to people in evaluating their own wellbeing. In the chapter, Lighting the path forward: Understanding social value from Indigenous fire (Qwen) stewardship, William Nikolakis and Russell Myers Ross document the community response by Yunesit’in First Nation, British Columbia, Canada, to the devastating 2017 wildfires in their territories. These wildfires had dramatic impacts on the rights and livelihoods of Yunesit’in people – in response, they then developed their own fire (Qwen) stewardship program to restore their lands, to proactively mitigate wildfire and to build community capacity in proactive fire management practices, which are grounded in Indigenous fire knowledge and practices. Through structured interviews and collective processes (such as community meetings and workshops), community members identified three general goals to evaluate the performance of the Qwen program, which reflect a holistic concept of social value: Strengthening cultural connection and wellbeing, or revitalizing and strengthening Indigenous knowledge and people’s connection to land, and in turn people’s collective wellbeing; restoring the health of the land, protecting earth and all living things, as well as cultural sites; and respecting traditional laws, maintaining laws such as ‘responsibility’ to steward the land and ‘reciprocity’ or giving back what you take from the land. Funders typically evaluated the Qwen program through quantitative measures, such as the number of people employed in the program and area burned (among others) – these measures do not adequately capture the stories of participants or reflect the community’s holistic perspectives on social value. The authors call for more integrated reporting among funders (public and private alike), to capture the stories and perspectives of people involved in programs, and to accommodate people’s perspectives on social value. Moira Moeliono and colleagues examine the concept of social value in Indonesia’s social forestry initiative. Their chapter, Social Forestry in Indonesia: Fragmented values, progress, contradictions, and opportunities, documents the development of Indonesia’s  social forestry program, which had originally been focused on enhancing local people’s access to forests to improve forest management and strengthen their wellbeing; and over time this social forestry program has transformed into focusing on agrarian and land tenure reform, reflecting an evolving concept of social value. However, the social forestry program has become a more technical and administrative exercise, with less consideration on social, cultural and environmental outcomes. Evaluations of the social forestry program show mixed outcomes in terms of socio-cultural stability, livelihoods and sustainable forest management. The authors conclude that social forestry has strengthened the governments control over forests, but at the same time has shifted forest governance to local peoples and NGOs. A trend towards promoting enterprise development and profits from social forestry may undermine the ‘social’ in social forestry further – emphasizing the importance of focusing on what is material to the people involved in programs.

1  Introduction – Social Value and Social Return on Investment: Theory and Practice

9

A concluding chapter by William Nikolakis weaves together the different chapters in this book and the themes covered: underscoring the growth and potential of social value and SROI, identifying the challenges and limitations, and providing guidance to practitioners and to the academy.

References Arvidson M, Lyon F, McKay S et al (2013) Valuing the social? The nature and controversies of measuring social return on investment (SROI). Volunt Sect Rev 4(1):3–18 Banke-Thomas AO, Madaj B, Charles A et al (2015) Social Return on Investment (SROI) methodology to account for value for money of public health interventions: a systematic review. BMC Public Health 15(1):1–14 Beer HA, Micheli P (2018) Advancing performance measurement theory by focusing on subjects: lessons from the measurement of social value. Int J Manag Rev 20(3):755–771 Campbell D (2015) Aboriginal involvement in caring-for-country: an economic case study in primary preventative health. Australas Psychiatry 23(6):623–625 Campbell D, Burgess CP, Garnett ST et al (2011) Potential primary health care savings for chronic disease care associated with Australian Aboriginal involvement in land management. Health Policy 99(1):83–89 da Veiga RM, Nikolakis W (2022) Carbon programs and fire management: a systematic literature review. Soc Nat Resour 35(8):896–913. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2022.2053618 Lingane A, Olsen S (2004) Guidelines for social return on investment. Calif Manag Rev 46(3):116–135 Moody M, Littlepage L, Paydar N (2015) Measuring social return on investment: lessons from organizational implementation of SROI in the Netherlands and the United States. Nonprofit Manag Leadersh 26(1):19–37 Mook L, Maiorano J, Ryan S et al (2015) Turning social return on investment on its head: the stakeholder impact statement. Nonprofit Manag Leadersh 26(2):229–246 Nicholls J, Lawlor E, Neitzert E et al (2012) A guide to social return on investment. The SROI Network. https://www.socialvalueint.org/guide-­to-­sroi. Accessed 25 Aug 2022 Nikolakis W, Roberts E (2020) Indigenous fire management: a conceptual model from literature. Ecol Soc 25(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-­11945-­250411 Nikolakis W, Roberts E (2021) Wildfire governance in a changing world: insights for policy learning and policy transfer. Risk Hazards Crisis Public Policy 13:144–164. https://doi.org/10.1002/ rhc3.12235 Nikolakis W, Welham C, Greene G (2022) Diffusion of indigenous fire management and carbon-­ credit programs: opportunities and challenges for ‘scaling-up’ to temperate ecosystems. Front For Glob Change 5:967653. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2022.967653 (in press) Nikolakis W, Gay V, Nygaard A (2023) The ‘environmental stewardship-health nexus’ among indigenous peoples: a global systematic literature review. Wellbeing Space Soc 4, 100121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wss.2022.100121 Pathak P, Dattani P (2014) Social return on investment: three technical challenges. Soc Enterp J 10(2):91–104 Pert PL, Hill R, Robinson CJ et  al (2020) Is investment in indigenous land and sea management going to the right places to provide multiple co-benefits? Australas J Environ Manag 27(3):249–274 Pyle E, Grant-Smith D, Mayes R (2018) Deficit discourses and aboriginal and Torres Strait islander disadvantage: a wicked problem in Australian indigenous policy? In: Thomas W, Hujala A, Laulainen S, McMurray R (eds) The management of wicked problems in health and social care. Routledge, Oxon, pp 148–159

10

W. Nikolakis and R. M. da Veiga

Ruiz-Lozano M, Tirado-Valencia P, Sianes A et al (2020) SROI methodology for public administration decisions about financing with social criteria. A case study. Sustainability 12(3):1070 Russell-Smith J, Cook GD, Cooke PM et  al (2013) Managing fire regimes in north Australian savannas: applying Aboriginal approaches to contemporary global problems. Front Ecol Environ 11:e55–e63 Russell-Smith J, Yates CP, Edwards AC et  al (2015) Deriving multiple benefits from carbon market-based savanna fire management: an Australian example. PLoS One 10. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143426 Ryan PW, Lyne I (2008) Social enterprise and the measurement of social value: methodological issues with the calculation and application of the social return on investment. Educ Knowl Econ 2(3):223–237 Social Ventures Australia (SVA) (2016) Analysis of the current and future value of indigenous Guardian work in Canada’s Northwest Territories: Decho first nations, Lutsel K’e First Nation, Indigenous Leadership Initiative, Tides Canada Vluggen R, Kuijpers R, Semeijn J et al (2020) Social return on investment in the public sector. J Public Procure 20(3):235–264

Part I

Social Value, SROI and Measurements

Chapter 2

A Critical Perspective on the Measurement of Social Value Through SROI Nadja Fugleberg Damtoft, Rainer Lueg, Dennis van Liempd, and Janni Grouleff Nielsen

2.1 Introduction A growing societal concern, increasing focus, and pressure from stakeholders mean that organizations are increasingly expected to disclose information that is not conventionally reported in financial statements. This includes information on their environmental and social activities and related impacts on their surroundings (Nicholls et al. 2012; Nielsen et al. 2019, 2020). This applies to both public and private sectors, whether it is civil society organizations aiming to create value, governments investing in social value activities, investors seeking to make a difference through their investments, or a private organization acknowledging threats and possibilities related to their operations (Nicholls et al. 2012). Organizations need to measure these in a valid and reliable manner to be accountable and transparent about social activities. Estimating the value of social activities is not a straightforward task, as many traditional accounting measures do not consider social values (Bagnoli and Megali 2011; Richmond et al. 2003). In response, one of the most prominent frameworks developed for measuring social value is Social Return on Investment (SROI) (Luke et al. 2013; Millar and Hall 2013). The framework measures value as a broad concept, including social, environmental, and

N. F. Damtoft (*) · J. G. Nielsen Department of Business and Economics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] R. Lueg Department of Business and Economics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark Institute of Finance and Accounting, Leuphana University, Lüneburg, Germany D. van Liempd Institute of Finance and Accounting, Leuphana University, Lüneburg, Germany © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 W. Nikolakis, R. Moura da Veiga (eds.), Social Value, Climate Change and Environmental Stewardship: Insights from Theory and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23145-2_2

13

14

N. F. Damtoft et al.

economic value elements (Nicholls et al. 2012). Value is produced and destroyed daily through people’s and businesses’ actions and activities, affecting the world around us. Although the value created goes far beyond financial value, organizations tend to focus on measuring and accounting for monetary value only. Economic activities (e.g., buying and selling products) are easy to monetize. Contrary, social, and environmental values are more difficult to measure, thus risking becoming secondary to economic indicators, as the latter is often considered to have greater accuracy in data quality (Arvidson et al. 2010). SROI analyses provide not only a financial ratio, measuring the return on investments made, but also offer several opportunities to discover undetected social benefits from activities. For example, an SROI analysis could show that a sustainable forestry project producing a financial return below-market return demonstrates a substantial social return, which justifies the lower financial return and ultimately help reduce deforestation and unsustainable forestry. However, SROI analysis is not always feasible or valid due to overwhelming costs, uncertain estimates, or issues with comparability, subjectivity, and legitimacy. This chapter provides a critical perspective on the measurement of social value created by organizations, specifically focusing on the forestry industry. It focuses on benefits and challenges related to social value measurement and provides general and forestry-related examples throughout the chapter.

2.2 Social Return on Investment Social accounting is “a systematic analysis of the effects of an organization on its communities of interest or stakeholders, with stakeholder input as part of the data that are analyzed for the accounting statement” (Richmond et al. 2003, p. 309). In other words, social accounting aims to measure organizations’ social value (Nielsen et al. 2020). Various researchers have tried to measure social value using key performance indicators, leading to many different tools and models for measuring social value. According to Nielsen et al. (2020), these include the expanded value-added statement (Richmond et al. 2003), SROI (Nicholls et al. 2012; Olsen and Lingane 2003), the Balanced Scorecard (Lueg and Carvalho e Silva 2013), the blended value approach (Emerson 2003), life satisfaction indexes (Kroeger and Weber 2014), and the social impact for local economies (SIMPLE) model (McLoughlin et al. 2009). This chapter focuses on one of the most prominent tools – the SROI framework.

2.2.1 The SROI Framework The SROI framework is derived from the conventional economic measure of Return on Investment (ROI), a profitability measure calculated by dividing an investment’s return with the cost related to the investment. In simple words, ROI tells a story of how a successful investment has performed. SROI builds on this principle as it relies on traditional cost-benefit analysis but a more holistic approach (Arvidson et al. 2010).

2  A Critical Perspective on the Measurement of Social Value Through SROI

15

Fig. 2.1  Overview of the SROI process. (Cogent Ventures n.d.)

It shows how well the organization converts its resources to social value (Cordes 2017; Nielsen et  al. 2020). Specifically, SROI can be described as “the value of social benefits created by an organization about the relative cost of achieving those benefits, the result [being a] monetized social value” (Millar and Hall 2013, p. 923). It covers the use of a set of principles arranged in a framework developed to increase consistency while at the same time recognizing that different people in different settings identify value differently (Nicholls et al. 2012). The framework identifies inputs, outputs, outcomes, and impacts of an organization’s social, economic, and environmental activities. It then puts a monetary value on their costs and benefits, as pictured in Fig. 2.1. It is essential to notice that the outcome (i.e., the values created) is linked to the investments made. The SROI analysis results in a return ratio, measuring the impact ratio to the input. An SROI of 4:1 shows that for every dollar invested, the project creates a social value of four dollars (net cost) (Arvidson et al. 2010). Although this process might seem promising, monetizing value is not an easy task, as the social value can rarely be measured directly. Identifying and monetizing relevant proxies is difficult and often includes a strong emphasis on stakeholder engagement. Communicating with relevant stakeholders (i.e., the people affected by the organization’s work or the people funding it) is a crucial step when calculating social return (Arvidson et al. 2010). It is strongly encouraged to follow a structured approach when calculating SROI, as the analysis requires user assessments throughout the process that cannot be substituted (Nicholls et al. 2012). Table 2.1 provides an example of a structured process with examples from a reforestation project in coastal Louisiana (Hemmerling et al. 2017). The Water Institute of the Gulf is a not-­ for-­profit research institute aiming to understand the coastal, deltaic, river, and water resources systems to support innovative science and engineering, resulting in solutions benefitting society (Hemmerling et al. 2017).

2.2.2 General Approaches to Valuating and Monetizing Social Value A crucial step in SROI analysis is valuating and monetizing the social value of an activity or project. Several approaches to measuring social value exist, and there is no “best practice” for this field. Instead, each project needs to be considered

16

N. F. Damtoft et al.

Table 2.1  Stages in the SROI analysis Stage Description 1. Establish scope and identify key stakeholders Setting clear boundaries for the analysis as well as to identify people involved in the process

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Examples related to forestrya The water institute analyzed economic, social, and environmental outcomes of a reforestation project and identified relevant stakeholders as corporate sponsors, conservation organizations, recreational users, people employed by the reforestation project, communities surrounding the site, and communities that benefitted from other ecosystem services and environmental outcomes. Mapping outcomes At the water institute reforestation project, outcomes Developing an impact map by included social value of carbon sequestered, improved engaging with stakeholders to soil formation and nutrient cycling, erosion control and reveal the relationship sediment retention, increased waste treatment capacity, between inputs, outputs, and enhanced habitats for hunting, fishing, general recreation outcomes and birdwatching, direct employment, enhanced business opportunities, enhanced habitat refuge, enhanced water quality, sense of community pride, and more educational programs among others. Evidencing outcomes and Examples: Social cost of carbon ($/acre/year), soil applying value formation ($/acre/year), waste treatment ($/acre/year), Collecting data to value value of carbon reduction ($/acre/year), refuge habitat outcomes ($/acre/year), fishing consumer surplus ($/person/day), cultural value ($/acre/year), educational value ($/person/ year). Establishing impact How many people would have been fishing or Removing impacts that would birdwatching regardless, educational users, general have happened regardless recreation etc. The final SROI is calculated All benefits are added up while all negatives are subtract-ed, and the result can now be compared to the investment. The sensitivity of the results can also be tested at this point Reporting, using, and embedding Although this step is vital for the process, it is often forgotten. After calculating the SROI, the findings should be shared with stakeholders in an effective and understandable manner

Adapted from Hemmerling et al. (2017) and Nicholls et al. (2012) a All examples are based on the report of The Water Institute

2  A Critical Perspective on the Measurement of Social Value Through SROI

17

Table 2.2  Examples of valuation related to the forest industry Method Comparison cost/cost saving/market value Covers the amount of money it will take to create the same benefit (comparison cost), how much money it will save (cost saving, or the market value of a similar activity as a proxy (market value) Willingness-to-pay/required compensation Is related to communicating with relevant people and asking them directly what they would pay for the specific social benefit, or how much they would require as a compensation for accepting a negative consequence

Examples The woods are a safe-place and a place for recovery for mental health issues Proxy: The cost saving of counseling hours

An organization offers to plant trees for free in a neighborhood Proxy: Price people are willing to pay to have trees planted in their areas, or price people would require I n compensation to accept trees to not be planted Proxy: Price people would require in compensation to accept that there are no trees planted in their neighborhood or the price people are willing to pay to have trees planted in their neighborhood Average household spending An organization offers free nature guidance and Is gathering monetized valuations from activities in the forest people’s actual spending preferences and Proxy: The average household spending on habits nature guidance and activities in the woods Hedonic pricing An organization initiates activities to increase Covers the price premium that is developed positive impacts of forests, such as drinking by social actions water, improved air quality, reduced traffic noise or enhanced biodiversity Proxy: The difference between house prices in an area without a forest, but with traffic noise or bad air quality and similar houses in an area with a forest and thus high(er) air quality or less traffic noise Cost-of-use estimates An organization provides free access to an Covers the monetary value of distance activity park in the forest traveled or the time used to approach a Proxy: Money value of giving up some time or specific product or service travel a specific distance to use the activity park Opportunity cost An organization decides to not harvest trees in a Covers the value not received (or the specific area to improve wildlife balance, resources not saved) because of not selecting creating a social and environmental value another opportunity. In other words, it covers Proxy: The cost of the next-best use of the trees the loss of a potential gain related to another (harvested), for example the sales price of wood opportunity Adapted from Nielsen et al. (2020)

individually, and a valid and reliable valuation approach must be decided. Table 2.2 explains several methods to measure social value. If “good” proxies exist, the analysis offers great promise and opportunities to analyze the monetary value of a social project. However, finding relevant proxies and monetizing them is one of the most critical and challenging aspects of an SROI analysis. The analysis is not a one-size-fits-all solution, as some types of social

18

N. F. Damtoft et al.

values do not fit into the analysis (Nielsen et  al. 2020). Following the work of Nielsen et al. (2020), we now discuss perspectives that could lead to an organization deciding against using the SROI framework. These include the correctness and appropriateness of the tool. To guide decisions on whether the SROI framework is useable, we also provide a framework developed by Nielsen et  al. (2020) (see Table 2.3 in Sect. 2.3.2.4), which offers an overview and can assist the decisionmaking process. Table 2.3  Questions managers should ask themselves before applying SROI (Nielsen et al. 2020) Situations were SROI may work

Why SROI may not work

What kind of social value do we create?

If the purpose of the social activities is well defined If the value creation process is not broad

If the purpose of the social activities is fuzzy If the value creation process is very broad If the social value created is very specific, for example for religious communities

Is it possible to find commercial actions that are similar, or can we use other methods for calculating the value of activities?

If it is possible to find commercial activities to serve as proxies If only a few proxies are needed to denote the social value If value can be measured on a monetary scale If the stakeholder group is well-defined and narrow

If it is not possible to find commercial activities to serve as proxies If the social value is difficult to measure or too individualistic (ordinal scales)

Questions for managers General factors Social value

Correctness of SROI Choices of proxies

Identifying stakeholders

Which stakeholders does the organization create value for?

If the stakeholder group is broad and not well-defined (for example all people in a country) If the stakeholder groups include several generations or future generations (continued)

2  A Critical Perspective on the Measurement of Social Value Through SROI

19

Table 2.3 (continued)

Time horizon

Deadweight factor

Appropriateness of SROI Comparability

Subjectivity

Questions for managers What is the time horizon for the outcome of the social activities?

Is the link between the activities and the positive change for individuals or society clear? Is it possible to isolate the effect of the activities from other initiatives?

Is it important for the organization to benchmark performance and if so, can similar organizations that use SROI be found? To what extent can the organization accept subjectivity in the calculation?

Situations were SROI may work If the outcome has an impact on the short- to medium-long term (within a timeframe of 5 years) By using control groups if natural experiments are available or clear analytical predictions can be made Benchmarking exists if the boundaries for social value and stakeholders are well-defined

Why SROI may not work If the outcome also has a significant long-term effect or remains open-ended

If similar organizations exist If a benchmark of commercial market value exists If it is easy to identify and clarify proxies representing the social value If the time horizon is short If it is clear who benefits from the activities If the link between social value and outcome is clear

If the organization and its mission is unique If the commercial market for the activities is imperfect If proxies are uncertain due to a weak link between proxies and the social activity If the time horizon is long, making it uncertain what the future value is If it is difficult to identify people benefitting from the activity If the link between the activity and the outcome is weak

If opportunity costs are highly uncertain If there are diverse beneficiaries

(continued)

20

N. F. Damtoft et al.

Table 2.3 (continued)

Legitimacy

Resource utility

Why SROI may not work If relevant stakeholders do not accept the idea that social value can be monetized If relevant stakeholders do not accept the identified proxies and calculation methods used If the organization is How many resources is the If proxies are easy to depending on adopt organization willing to If relevant stakeholders stakeholders’ spend on calculating the involvement to are well-defined SROI and explaining the framework to stakeholders? If it is easy to identify identify relevant a causal link between proxies If different the activity and the stakeholders assign outcome different values to the If the time horizon is same outcomes short If the social value If the mission is only can be calculated well-defined and by including many concrete, making it clear exactly what the and complex proxies organization is aiming If the social value differs from project to for project and cannot be If the social value calculated by using created is narrow, standard proxies making it more efficient to document Questions for managers Does the SROI framework have legitimacy among internal and external stakeholders?

Situations were SROI may work If relevant stakeholders accept the idea that social value can be monetized If relevant stakeholders accept the identified proxies and the method of calculation

2.3 Correctness and Appropriateness of SROI Figure 2.2 illustrates some factors affecting the correctness and appropriateness of the SROI framework, including choice of proxies, stakeholder identification, time horizon, and level of subjectivity, legitimacy, and comparability. These elements are discussed in this section.

2.3.1 The Correctness of the SROI Framework According to Maier et al. (2015), it is of paramount importance to be cautious when linking measurement and social value, as not all social value can be meaningfully monetized. As previously mentioned, some activities are easy to measure through

2  A Critical Perspective on the Measurement of Social Value Through SROI

21

Fig. 2.2  Factors affecting the correctness and appropriateness of the SROI framework. (Nielsen et al. 2020)

proxies, such as medical treatment or providing free job training, while other activities are more difficult to monetize (Nielsen et al. 2020). Especially activities viewed as “priceless” or unique are challenging to monetize (Maier et  al. 2015; Nielsen et al. 2020). These challenges threaten the validity of the SROI analysis, and it is essential to justify the causality between an action and the resulting change (if any) that occur. One example could be the value of visiting forests and nature to increase mental health. Suppose causality between the action and the effect is unclear. In that case, the impact of the deadweight factor is unknown (Nielsen et  al. 2020), and organizations should only include results that are evidently and directly attributable to the activity (Lingane and Olsen 2004). The deadweight factor is “a percentage of the outcome of a social activity that is estimated to would have happened anyway, regardless of the organization” (Nielsen et al. 2020, p. 424). Causality is especially challenging if the outcome happens many years after the activity due to larger uncertainty. In addition, the time value of investments, where the social value created today might be “worth more” than the social value created in 10 years, also complicates calculations (Nielsen et al. 2020). Additionally, with increasing time between an activity and its outcome, it becomes more challenging to allocate overhead costs (Pathak and Dattani 2014), as well as the deadweight factor that needs to be deducted (Nielsen et al. 2020). This means that the correctness of an SROI analysis is affected by the choices made before the analysis. These include, among other things, the choice of proxies, identifying relevant stakeholders, time horizons, and deadweight factors.

2.3.2 The Appropriateness of the SROI Framework Appropriateness issues include comparability, subjectivity, legitimacy, and resource utility (Nielsen et al. 2020).

22

N. F. Damtoft et al.

2.3.2.1 Comparability Although one of the advantages of SROI is that it becomes possible to compare the results across organizations, projects, or industries (like ROI), this is not always the case. Different purposes, stakeholders, and scales, makes it challenging to compare SROI across projects. Research has found that it is almost impossible to compare social value across non-profit organizations and social enterprises due to diversity in missions, stakeholder groups, locations, and measurement methods (Cooney 2017; Dacin et  al. 2010; Emerson 2003; Mair and Martí 2006; Nicholls 2009; Nielsen et al. 2020; Zahra et al. 2009). Comparability is best achieved by uniform organizations or projects that are utilizing similar proxies and measurement methods. In situations like these, SROI should be a top priority when measuring value (Nielsen et al. 2020). Another challenge related to an SROI analysis is the level of professional (but subjective) judgment related to the measurement of social return. Changes in proxies used (Richmond et al. 2003) or subjective assumptions related to the measurement (Mook et al. 2015) can affect the ratio significantly. For example, Cooney and Lynch-Cerullo (2014) showed that a change in underlying assumptions affected social return, varying from $1.16 to $6.07 for every dollar invested. Therefore, comparing social return ratios between organizations is not always feasible. Instead, organizations could focus on comparing their own SROI over time. For social investors to decide on social investment, they need to carefully consider not only the ratio itself, but all aspects related to the measurement (Nicholls et al. 2012). 2.3.2.2 Subjectivity Researchers argue that specific categories of social value are challenging to measure on a monetized scale. These categories include but are not limited to, increases in the quality of life and lives saved (Lingane and Olsen 2004; McLoughlin et al. 2009; Nicholls 2009; Nielsen et al. 2020), as there is no generally accepted approach to measure these in a way that is both valid and reliable. This forces organizations to develop proxies based on their specific context and their own subjective perceptions and judgments (Maier et al. 2015; Nielsen et al. 2020). The fact that there are no international reporting principles or standards for financial accounting makes it difficult to validate and rely on the SROI ratio alone (Nielsen et al. 2020). Additionally, some trade-offs that pit sacred values against other sacred values is viewed as “taboo,” with morally unacceptable choice as results (Daw et  al. 2015; Manero et al. 2022). Although an organization might be practically able to calculate an SROI if they accept a certain degree of subjectivity and comparability, this might not be appropriate (Nielsen et  al. 2020). Some degree of subjectivity is expected and should be accepted, but with too high degrees of subjectivity comes an uncertain measure (Yates and Marra 2017). That cannot meaningfully be linked to individual projects

2  A Critical Perspective on the Measurement of Social Value Through SROI

23

or be used for thorough benchmarking. This can reduce the measurement to a legitimacy exercise, rather than providing learnings opportunities or improvements to decision-making processes within the organization (Nielsen et al. 2020). As previously mentioned, the degree of subjectivity depends on the individual situation: in some cases, it is easy to find relevant and measurable proxies for activities, while in other situations, it is very difficult or almost impossible. Not only the selection of proxies is subject to subjectivity, but also the identification of relevant stakeholder groups that benefit from the value created. 2.3.2.3 Legitimacy In theory, using SROI and communicating their social value should help create legitimacy and acceptance from different stakeholder groups (Nielsen et al. 2020), as it simplifies information and understandably presents social value, allowing stakeholders’ opinions to be shaped (Luke et al. 2013; Nielsen et al. 2020). However, while financial tools, such as ROI, have gained legitimacy with investors, other, more qualitative performance measurement methods have not yet achieved this legitimacy in practice. This legitimacy gap negatively affects the relevance and adoption of SROI in practice (Gibbon and Dey 2011; Luke et al. 2013; Nielsen et al. 2020). Therefore, organizations need to consider how to create legitimacy when applying SROI. One way is to complement calculations with narratives and stories (Luke et al. 2013; Nielsen et al. 2020). This can ultimately increase transparency as well as the understanding of the social value the organization has created (Bagnoli and Megali 2011). 2.3.2.4 Resource Utility Ultimately, individual organizations must consider the pros and cons, as well as the costs versus benefits, of using SROI as a measure of social value created. Some of the costs are resources required to develop SROI, as many stakeholders are involved, and relevant data are collected. Resources are not only spent on calculations but are also required to communicate and explain the measure to stakeholders to gain legitimacy (Nielsen et al. 2020). Table 2.3 summarizes relevant questions managers should ask themselves before applying SROI to ensure correctness as well as the appropriateness of the measurement (Nielsen et al. 2020). It serves as a decision-aiding tool, which can assist managers in deciding whether the SROI framework is applicable to their organization. The previous sections clearly demonstrate numerous challenges in conducting an appropriate and correct SROI analysis. These disadvantages should be carefully considered in relation to potential advantages.

24

N. F. Damtoft et al.

2.4 Advantages and Benefits Although there are several pitfalls and threats to an SROI analysis, the analysis also has many advantages. To sum up, the SROI framework can be used as a strategic instrument used for planning or improvement purposes. Additionally, it can help communicate the impact or support decision-making in a corporation (Nielsen et al. 2020). There are several advantages of conducting an SROI analysis. First, the analysis can facilitate discussion and insights about social value and how this value is maximized. Second, the process of conducting the SROI can help organizations to identify a “common ground” between the goals of the organization and the goals of relevant stakeholders, which can improve social value by adapting activities to meet stakeholder goals (Arvidson et al. 2010; Nicholls et al. 2012). This, in turn, strengthens organizational accountability to key stakeholders (Arvidson et al. 2010) and supports legitimacy. Third, an SROI analysis assists in raising a specific profile of the organization and improves future funding opportunities by streamlining activities with high social value. Furthermore, a focus on impact mapping provides a basic guideline for clarifying the basis of the organization’s work, including describing the vision, theory of change, and impact (Arvidson et al. 2010). Fourth, the evaluative process of the SROI analysis can identify issues at the individual and community level and make organizations aware of the subjective evaluations involved in any kind of social assessment (Arvidson et al. 2010). Finally, an SROI analysis can be used by a broad range of organizations: from non-profit organizations to public or private sector organizations, independent of their size or age (Nicholls et al. 2012). Table 2.4 summarizes benefits and challenges of SROI analysis. Table 2.4  Summary of advantages and disadvantages related to an SROI analysis Advantages or benefits It can facilitate discussion and enhance the understanding of the social value of activities It can help clarify how social value is maximized It can identify a “common ground” between organization goals and relevant stakeholder goals It streamlines an organization’s social activities, helps raise a specific organizational profile, and improves future opportunities It can identify activities and new opportunities for social value creation It is, in principle, applicable to a broad range of organizations It offers a structured and standardized approach to measuring social value Disadvantages or challenges The nature of the activity sometimes makes it difficult to monetize Finding relevant proxies for the measurement International reporting principles or standards do not exist, making it difficult to validate the result Professional judgment, biases, and personal perceptions might affect the measurement The effect depends on the interest and engagement of stakeholders It can be difficult to establish causal links between activities and outcomes A deadweight factor needs to be deducted, which can be difficult to calculate

2  A Critical Perspective on the Measurement of Social Value Through SROI

25

2.5 Practical Cases This section illustrates two examples of organizations conducting an SROI analysis of activities.

2.5.1 Social Enterprises Preserving Cultural Heritage This example is based on the work of Nielsen et al. (2020), who conducted a case study involving social enterprises that preserve cultural heritage. Social enterprises often have considerable, assessable assets-under-management, but produce social value that is difficult to measure. This creates an imbalance, calling for greater transparency and accountability (Nielsen et al. 2020). In this case, the organization focuses on two “strings” of work. First, they are restoring and renovating historical buildings in a Northern-European country to rent the restored buildings out to tenants. The buildings typically have historical value for society, both locally and nationally. Secondly, they are constructing new buildings focusing on innovative solutions and materials. They have invested more than 420 million EUR in tangible assets in historical buildings, but stakeholders increasingly demanded that efficiency and social impact be measured and reported (Nielsen et al. 2020). To achieve this, the organization needed to measure the social value created in a comprehensible way, simultaneously ensuring the legitimacy of related activities. The Chief Financial Officer (CFO) considered using SROI and stated that “it is easier to get one’s message across about something if it has a monetary value because people can relate to numbers” (Nielsen et al. 2020, p. 420). In addition, the organization wanted to measure the organization’s internal performance. They were specifically interested in how successfully the organization generated social value across different projects to allocate resources to projects that would produce the highest value for society. In other words, the organization wanted a framework that could tell them how much social value was created when investing a specific amount of money in a project – preferably in a structured way, making it possible to fulfill stakeholders’ expectations. The ROI of the social enterprise was below market return, but the organization was confident that SROI would be higher, thereby justifying the relatively low ROI (Nielsen et al. 2020). The organization categorized the created social value of its activities into three categories, as in Fig. 2.3. 1. Local value: Buying historical buildings for restoration creates jobs in the local community. In addition, restoring old buildings might inspire other people to do the same, increasing prices and creating new jobs through the spillover effect. The overall well-being of a community is increased by creating satisfaction, pleasure, and a better economic situation. However, these values are all collected by stories told in the community but never supported by quantitative measures.

26

N. F. Damtoft et al.

Fig. 2.3  Categories of social value arising from activities of the cultural heritage social enterprise. (Nielsen et al. 2020)

2. National value: Restoring historical buildings preserves history and understanding of architecture and culture. This creates social value for the nation, which could otherwise be lost forever. By renting the facilities out at market value, renting out is made sustainable, and the hope is that the buildings will be conserved forever. 3. Inter-organizational value: Knowledge is shared between members of the organization, as well as professional architects, engineers, construction organizations, and museums, to become a pioneer in terms of restoring cultural heritage sites. The organization not only produces information about history, culture, and architecture but also sustainable and innovative building and restoration methods. After identifying these categories of social value affected by the organization’s activities, the next step is to identify indicators that measure distinct value creation. Finding other organizations for benchmarking can be difficult, especially if the competitors are more commercial and without a social mission. Finding relevant and measurable proxies is not the only concern when evaluating the social value created. The social enterprise also found it challenging to identify relevant stakeholders, the size of deadweight factors, and the length of time horizons. The four pitfalls of the SROI calculation in the case study enterprise can be described as:

2  A Critical Perspective on the Measurement of Social Value Through SROI

27

1. Choice of proxies: All proxies should be easily identified, but organizations often struggle with identifying ones that cover all essential aspects of social value and the diversity of projects (as some projects are unique). The aim is to identify general proxies without the need to develop new proxies for every project. Identifying these proxies is not accessible if a comparable market does not exist or if the constructs are “fuzzier,” such as knowledge development or knowledge sharing. With these activities, a new perspective arises regarding when to measure the value created – is it as soon as the knowledge is written on paper? Or is it as soon as knowledge has been applied by experts in the field? 2. Identifying stakeholders: Identifying stakeholders that benefit from the social value created can sometimes be problematic. One way to monetize social value is by multiplying the number of activities or the range of stakeholders that have benefited from the action by an available market rate. If all things are held equal, an increasing number of activities or an increasing market rate will result in a higher social value. However, some organizations do not have a specific group of stakeholders as a target but instead aim at generating impact for society at large (Nielsen et al. 2020). 3. Time horizon: If the value-creating activities include a longer time horizon, it can complicate the calculation of the SROI. Some activities, including restoring historical buildings, aim to create value for a very long period after the restoration process is completed. Nicholls et al. (2007) suggested using a time-frame time frame of five years when calculating SROI as the accuracy of forecasting over five years decreases. 4. Deadweight factor: The case organization found it challenging to isolate the effect of activities, as the resulting value also could be due to other events not performed by the specific organization. This case is built on the work of Nielsen et al. (2020). This case clearly illustrates why organizations consider SROI as a framework for calculating social value and the importance of taking social value into account when reporting activities and performance. However, it also shows the challenges related to its measurement. In this example, the organization decided against using the SROI framework as a measurement tool due to the challenges and resource consumption.

2.5.2 The Greenlink Project This example is based on the work of O’Neil (2009), Greenspace Scotland, which is one of two “pathfinder projects” to develop an SROI program for the greenspace sector (O’Neil 2009). The Greenlink project managed by the Central Scotland Forest Trust is a 7-­kilometer cycle route, creating a direct path from Strathclyde Country Park to Motherwell Town Centre. Green urban spaces are thought to contribute to a healthier, safer, and stronger country with a unique contribution to the well-being

28

N. F. Damtoft et al.

Table 2.5  Impact map for regular volunteers (O’Neil 2009) Input Energy and enthusiasm Time – material so valued in the impact map

Output 427 days of conservation activity (3 hours/day)

Outcomes Giving something back to the community Increased physical health/stamina Improved wellbeing and positive thinking from being outdoors Meeting new people from the community More confidence Better tolerance of children and young people Learning new environmental skills

11 environmental skills training sessions provided 13 volunteers on formal core Getting a job skills training courses More likely to get a job in the future 1062 hours spent socializing Making new friends – Social connection

of communities. The strategic objectives of the Scottish Government are focused on helping people sustain and improve their health, and they recognize that quality green spaces significantly contribute to this improvement. An SROI analysis focused on the Greenlink route’s woodlands, which included a group of seven stakeholders, including conservation volunteers and residents (O’Neil 2009). The theory of change, which serves as the foundation for this analysis, claims that community engagement is developed through ongoing and persistent conservation, and a positive outcome behavior with the environment is endorsed. Many different outcomes are generated, including physical health, mental well-being, community feeling, and community pride (O’Neil 2009). Table 2.5 provides an example of an impact map presenting the relationship between inputs, outputs, and outcomes for one group of stakeholders called regular volunteers. It is essential to notice that this impact map is only applicable to this specific stakeholder group. After identifying inputs, outputs, and outcomes for all stakeholder groups, indicators and financial proxies are identified to monetize the social value. Table 2.6 provides an example of selected indicators for the stakeholder group called regular volunteers. All indicators are given a financial proxy, aiming at monetizing the indicator (O’Neil 2009). These are chosen specifically for this project and with profound knowledge of the organization and its stakeholders and might be different for other organizations. For this project, five main types of financial proxies are used: average household spending, the value of people’s time, cost of equivalent activities, house values, and avoided costs of treatment for health conditions (O’Neil 2009). Table 2.6 shows the value of outcomes received for regular volunteers for the stakeholder group. However, to calculate the overall impact of the project, these values must be reduced to include what would have happened regardless (deadweight cost), who else creates these outcomes (attribution), and negative outcomes

2  A Critical Perspective on the Measurement of Social Value Through SROI

29

Table 2.6  Selecting indicators and financial proxies for all outcomes for regular volunteers (O’Neil 2009) Outcomes Indicators Giving something Positive comments passed back to the community onto volunteers by community Learning new Number of formal environmental skills environmental skills training sessions provided Increased physical Number of people health/stamina reporting improved fitness Improved wellbeing and positive thinking from being outdoors Making new friends Meeting new people from the community Gaining more confidence Better tolerance of children and young people

Number of people reporting improved Well-being from being outdoors Amount of time spent with friends in the team Numbers of friends reported in the community Extra hours of community involvement

Financial proxy Average family spend on small gifts

Quantity Value £ 214 1.50

Cost of commercial/ 11 alternative training provision Average family 21 spend on sports/ leisure Cost per hour of 966 group therapy

Cost of conservation holiday per hour Cost of club membership GL calculation of value of volunteer time Amount of time spent with GL calculation of children and young people value of volunteer on event days time

100.54

243.8

13.33

966

5.42

690

0.3

138

6.25

445

6.25

not included in the impact map (displacement) (O’Neil 2009). Deadweight is calculated by comparing groups or benchmarks. The best way to measure this is to compare people: “who has benefited from the activity we are analyzing with people from the same group of people who has not” (O’Neil 2009, p. 31). However, with greenspace interventions, this is not possible which is why deadweight will be an estimate. In this case, they used information from a survey that showed that general volunteering in North Lanarkshire was 13.7%. This information was applied as a proxy as they estimated that 13.7% of the Greenlink volunteers would have volunteered anyway (O’Neil 2009). Attribution on the other hand is about how much of the achieved outcome was caused by the work of other organizations which is also based on estimates. Deadweight and attribution percentage estimates are then transformed to monetary value by calculating the monetary impact. Before calculating the final SROI ratio, it is important to consider the time horizons, which include how long the outcome of an activity is thought to last. In this example, health outcomes are assumed to last up to 5 years, while changes in attitudes and perceptions are assumed to last between 2 to 3 years and yet other outcome are projected for a 1-year period. This is relevant, as the impact value ideally should be adjusted to reflect the present value of the impact. However, these calculations all go beyond what is expected in this chapter.

N. F. Damtoft et al.

30

In this case, Greenlink calculated the impact value for the total impact map to £976,552, while the total investment in the same period, to generate this value, was £127,906. SROI =

Impact Value 976, 552 = = 7.63 Impact Investment 127, 906



The social return on this project is thus £7.63 for every £1 invested (O’Neil 2009).

2.6 Conclusion Social organizations are pressured by internal or external stakeholders to become more transparent in their reporting on the value they create as well as their impact on their community. The traditional financial measurement methods fall short in this case, as they fail to capture the non-financial or social value created. The SROI framework is a measurement tool monetizing non-financial aspects of an organization’s activities. Still, it comes with limitations as not all situations or social values are relevant in this framework. Issues such as comparability, subjectivity, legitimacy, and resource utility affect the appropriateness of the framework while selecting proxies, identification of stakeholders, the length of time horizon, and the deadweight factor affect the correctness. These are all features that organizations need to consider before deciding to apply this framework. Suppose the framework is deemed appropriate and correct. In that case, it can compare the output with input, which allows organizations to measure their effectiveness by measuring the social value of their projects in monetized value (Nielsen et al. 2020). When applying a framework, practitioners should reconsider whether indicators make sense and are deemed relevant for stakeholders throughout the process. Related to the forestry and conservation industry, it is essential to consider the amenity value of the greenspace in various housing areas and deliberate measures of greenspaces’ effects on house prices for the specific region or country. Additionally, it is recommended that effective ways of quantifying increases in biodiversity are developed (O’Neil 2009). Future research could investigate effective ways to estimate the contributions of other organizations to the outcomes as well as the duration of greenspace outcomes and drop-offs (O’Neil 2009).

References Arvidson M, Lyon F, Mckay S et al (2010) The ambitions and challenges of SROI. Third Sector Research Centre http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/788/. Accessed 25 Aug 2022 Bagnoli L, Megali C (2011) Measuring performance in social enterprises. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Q 40(1):149–165 Congent Ventures (n.d.) Measuring the social return in the natural health service. Community Forest Trust. https://www.merseyforest.org.uk/files/documents/1355/ Community+Forest+Report+Final.pdf. Accessed 25 Aug 2022

2  A Critical Perspective on the Measurement of Social Value Through SROI

31

Cooney K (2017) Legitimation dynamics: how SROI could mobilize resources for new constituencies. Eval Program Plann 64:110–115 Cooney K, Lynch-Cerullo K (2014) Measuring the social returns of nonprofits and social enterprises: the promise and perils of the SROI. Nonprofit Policy Forum 5(2):367–393. https://doi. org/10.1515/npf-­2014-­0017 Cordes JJ (2017) Using cost-benefit analysis and social return on investment to evaluate the impact of social enterprise: promises, implementation, and limitations. Eval Program Plann 64:98–104 Dacin PA, Dacin TM, Matear M (2010) Social entrepreneurship: why we don’t need a new theory and how we move forward from here. Acad Manag Perspect 24(3):37–58 Daw TM, Coulthard S, Cheung WW et al (2015) Evaluating taboo trade-offs in ecosystem services and human well-being. Social Sci PNAS 112(22):6949–6954. https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.1414900112 Emerson J (2003) The blended value proposition integrating social and financial returns. Calif Manag Rev 45(4):35–52 Gibbon J, Dey C (2011) Developments in social impact measurement in the third sector: scaling up or dumbing down? Soc Environ Account J 31(1):63–72 Hemmerling C, Barra M, Bienn H (2017) Restore the earth foundation cypress reforestation social return on investment report: pointe-aux-Chenes wildlife management area. Restore the Earth Foundation https://restoretheearth.org/wp-­content/uploads/2018/01/REF-­Water-­Institute-­ Pointe-­aux-­Chenes-­SROI-­Report-­FINAL-­08.30.2017-­1.pdf. Accessed 25 Aug 2022 Kroeger A, Weber C (2014) Developing a conceptual framework for comparing social value creation. Acad Manag Rev 39(4):513–540 Lingane A, Olsen S (2004) Guidelines for social return on investment. Calif Manag Rev 46(3):1–10 Lueg R, Carvalho e Silva AL (2013) When one size does not fit all: a literature review on the modifications of the balanced scorecard. Probl Perspect Manag 11(3):61–69 Luke B, Barraket J, Eversole R (2013) Measurement as legitimacy versus legitimacy of measures. Qual Res Account Manag 10(3/4):234–258 Maier F, Schober C, Simsa R et al (2015) SROI as a method for evaluation research: understanding merits and limitations. Voluntas 26(5):1805–1830 Mair J, Martí I (2006) Social entrepreneurship research: a source of explanation, prediction, and delight. J World Bus 41(1):36–44 Manero A, Taylor K, Nikolakis W et al (2022) A systematic literature review of non-market valuation of indigenous peoples’ values: current knowledge, best-practice and framing questions for future research. Ecosyst Serv 54:101417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101417 McLoughlin J, Kaminski J, Sodagar B et al (2009) A strategic approach to social impact measurement of social enterprises. Soc Enterp J 5(2):154–178 Millar R, Hall K (2013) Social return on investment (SROI) and performance measurement. Public Adm Rev 15(6):923–941 Mook L, Chan A, Kershaw D (2015) Measuring social Enterprise value creation. Nonprofit Manag Leadersh 26(2):189–207 Nicholls A (2009) ‘We do good things, don't we?’: ‘Blended value accounting’ in social entrepreneurship. Account Organ Soc 34(6–7):755–769 Nicholls J, Mackenzie S, Somers A (2007) Measuring real value: a DIY guide to social return on investment. The New Economics Foundation http://www.neweconomics.org/sites/neweconomics.org/files/Measuring_Real_Value.pdf. Accessed 25 Aug 2022 Nicholls J, Lawlor E, Neitzert E et al (2012) A guide to social return on investment. The SROI Network. https://www.socialvalueint.org/guide-­to-­sroi. Accessed 25 Aug 2022 Nielsen JG, Lueg R, van Liempd D (2019) Managing multiple logics: the role of performance measurement systems in social enterprises. Sustainability 11(8):1–23 Nielsen JG, Lueg R, van Liempd D (2020) Challenges and boundaries in implementing social return on investment: an inquiry into its situational appropriateness. Nonprofit Manag Leadersh 31(3):413–435

32

N. F. Damtoft et al.

O’Neil E (2009) Social Return on Investment (SROI) analysis of the Greenlink, a partnership project managed by the Central Scotland Forest Trust (CSFT). Greenspace Scotland https://socialvalueuk.org/wp-­content/uploads/2016/09/Greenlink-­SROI-­Final-­report-­5-­October-­2009.pdf. Accessed 25 Aug 2022 Olsen S, Lingane A (2003) Social return on investment: standard guidelines. https://escholarship. org/uc/item/6xp540hs. Accessed 25 Aug 2022 Pathak P, Dattani P (2014) Social return on investment: three technical challenges. Soc Enterp J 10(2):91–104 Richmond BJ, Mook L, Quarter J (2003) Social accounting for nonprofits: two models. Nonprofit Manag Leadersh 13(4):308–324 Yates BT, Marra M (2017) Social return on investment (SROI): problems, solutions … and is SROI a good investment? Eval Program Plann 64:136–144 Zahra S, Gedajlovic E, Neubaum DO et al (2009) A typology of social entrepreneurs: motives, search processes, and ethical challenges. J Bus Ventur 24(5):519–532

Chapter 3

Measuring and Managing Social Value: Myths and Opportunities Adam Richards

3.1 Introduction This chapter aims to highlight the key purpose and requirements for impact measurement and management, whist also demystifying some of the persistent myths that surround the practice. The focus of this chapter is first and foremost about accounting for impacts, not reporting about impacts. It is about how the Principles of Social Value can create a framework with the potential to improve how organizations make decisions. It is about meaningfully engaging stakeholders so the effects of choices on people and the planet are taken into account. It is about understanding the trade-offs between positive and negative effects for stakeholders, and the associated risks. It is about contributing to sustainable development and optimizing impacts for all materially affected stakeholders. It is about creating a more sustainable and equitable world. It is about showing that there is an alternative to the destructive path humankind finds itself hurtling on – it is about changing how the world accounts for value.

3.2 The Imperative for Impact Management This chapter must start by highlighting what is common knowledge, the human species is at a significant cross-road. And that is putting things very lightly – the reality is we are on a precipice. The warning signs about the global environmental crises have long-since become collective screams for change – albeit without the levels of A. Richards (*) Social Value International, Liverpool, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 W. Nikolakis, R. Moura da Veiga (eds.), Social Value, Climate Change and Environmental Stewardship: Insights from Theory and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23145-2_3

33

34

A. Richards

commitment or improvements that most would see as a reasonable response to the rapid eradication of flora and fauna, the collective heating of the planet, and the unprecedented bursting of planetary boundaries. Even a cursory glance at reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) progress (or lack thereof) reports does not make for a comfortable bedtime read. They make clear the collective failure to deliver what is required, and in all-too-many instances highlight the regressive nature of our trajectory. So, this chapter has clearly failed to start with an upbeat message, but recognizing where we are as a species and our apparent incessant march towards irreparable destruction and self-inflicted harm (which is also significantly  disproportionately distributed) sets the scene for why we need to examine the importance of impact management. However, within the darkness there are beacons of light. The SDGs themselves are something that can rightly be celebrated. For me they were best described by Marc Buckley1 who called them the first global moon-shot, an ambition that aligned all 193 Member States of the United Nations to the global imperative for a more sustainable future for all. It is certainly no mean-feat to get the agreement of so many nations, even committing in principle to what would be fundamental shifts in how organizations operate, make decisions, and are rewarded. Of course, what is proving the greater challenge are the necessary actions to make the 17 Global Goals such as eradicating poverty and hunger, as well as achieving gender equality a reality. Again, we can see positive gimmers of hope, including increasing societal and legislative pressures to create the sustainable and equitable future needed. But change is simply not accelerating at anywhere near the pace required. The pre-pandemic annual shortfall of capital mobilization required to achieve the SDGs was estimated to be $2.5 trillion USD (United Nations 2019). Unfortunately, things have only continued to get worse, with the consequences of the coronavirus, the collapse of support for developing nations (OECD 2021a), unjustifiable conflicts and attacks of the rights of marginalized groups around the world. The consequences of our actions are continuing to increase what were already unsustainable and morally indefensible levels of inequality. One example that is simply ridiculous is current estimates suggest it will take 136 years to close the gender-equality gap – an increase of 36 years based on barriers generated by the pandemic (World Economic Forum 2021). This means that at least another generation of women will not have parity with their male counterparts. Yet, ask anyone who wants gender equality when they want it and I am convinced no-one will answer over 100 years – the answer is more likely to be yesterday!

 https://www.linkedin.com/in/buckleymarc/?originalSubdomain=de

1

3  Measuring and Managing Social Value: Myths and Opportunities

35

Addressing levels of inequality is not something that should only be considered a moral imperative. It is one of common sense. Viewing inequality as a virus (Wilkinson and Pickett 2009) that affects each of us is crucial to enacting the sort of changes required to redress it. Its effects may not be as easily recognized as say the effects of deforestation or the destruction of biodiversity, but nevertheless, it is something that kills en masse (Ahmed et al. 2022). And like pernicious effects on the natural environment, it should not be viewed as an abstract concept nor inevitable – it is human-made by the systems, structures, and policies that are constructed to protect the powerful at the expense of those less powerful – put simply it is a political choice (Chancel et al. 2022). At this juncture it is important to promise that this chapter does outline practical opportunities that have potential to change the status-quo. However, before it does, I’d like to ask you to pause and reflect on what is important for you, for your family, for your community, and for society more broadly. I am sure that having enough money is part of your thinking – it’s part of mine. But I’m equally sure that other aspects of your life are at least, and probably more valuable than this. Issues such as health, relationships with others, clean air and water, and a range of other material issues will be on your lists. So, contrary to The New Yorker (2022) cartoon, I don’t believe any of us would be sitting in a post-apocalyptic cave lamenting the end of the world but still reflecting happily on the value we created for shareholders. We all recognize the range of issues that are valuable  – so why is it that so many organizational decisions are framed largely by only one form of value, the financial return on investment? Even those who may be regarded as the staunchest advocates for such a myopic view of value recognize it as short-sighted at best. Be it redefining the purpose of corporations as serving all stakeholders (Business Roundtable 2019), or highlighting that climate risk is investment risk (BlackRock 2022), the rhetoric is clear. What is now needed are actions. Based on such truisms, and flanked by the knowledge that the human species has proven itself to be remarkably adaptable when faced with the collective challenge of a global pandemic, I reiterate what are three straight-forward, yet fundamental shifts required to create the future we all want and need: • We need to operate within planetary boundaries. • We need to significantly increase levels of equality. • We need to make decisions based on a broader definition of value. The first two statements are familiar calls to action, but without the third, these ambitions will remain unfulfilled. Only when non-financial impacts are genuinely viewed as material to decision-making can demands for a sustainable and more equitable future be achieved. And this is where this chapter turns to examine how the Principles of Social Value can support such an ambition.

36

A. Richards

3.3 The Principles of Social Value and Impact Management 3.3.1 Origins We can trace the evolution of impact management practice from roots in environmentalism, human rights, and a range of other important and interrelated concerns. However, it is possible to pin-point a more contemporary influence that has accelerated the development of practice. Pioneering thinkers and practitioners such as Jed Emerson and colleagues at the Roberts Enterprise Development Fund (REDF) addressed deficiencies in traditional cost-benefit-analysis for social purpose organizations. Their work led to the creation of Social Return on Investment (SROI), a methodology that can reflect the experiences of those stakeholders experiencing the effects of activities so accounts of non-financial performance meaningfully influence decisions (for a more plotted history of SROI, along with its convergences and differences to other approaches, see Nicholls 2016). Fast-forward some 20-something years to the present, and the groundwork of REDF and others has been extended to create an accounting framework for impacts centered on the Principles of Social Value (“the Principles”) (SVI 2021b). The Principles form the basis of the standards for social value/impact accounting advocated by Social Value International (SVI), a network of national and regional membership networks. As the financial accounting profession has standards bodies (for example, the International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation (IFRS)) that create the rulebooks by which professional judgements are based, the ambition of SVI is to provide social value accounting with similar standards-based consistency. Based on eight principles, the international standards create the potential to improve practice and help mitigate against risks including impact washing (see for example, GIIN 2020). The ultimate intention of SVI is to change the way society accounts for value, so organizational decisions are not based exclusively or primarily on financial value. This embodies the vision that consistent application of standards will create a system that increases levels of equality, improves the wellbeing of people, and reduces environmental harm. Owing to the advantage of time and the associated development of education, practice, and legislation, accounting for financial value can rightly claim to have a narrower range of professional judgements in comparison to the much younger counterpart of accounting for social value (and the associated methodology of SROI). And the reality is that although consensus, and to some degree convergence, has rapidly increased in recent years, social value accounting will always require practitioners to apply more professional judgements. This is inherent to a practice that is centered on understanding the largely intangible changes of interventions and identifying their subjective importance from the perspective of those stakeholders affected.

3  Measuring and Managing Social Value: Myths and Opportunities

37

Therefore, importantly the Principles are not intended to create a one-size-fits-all approach to measuring and accounting for impacts. They do, however, provide a universal framework that has the necessary flexibility to be applied to all organizational activities, regardless of sector, geography, or motivation.

3.3.2 Purpose Before examining the Principles in more detail, it is important to briefly reflect on the very purpose of impact management. This fundamental issue is also probably one of the most misunderstood, and consequently most limiting aspects for the whole profession. Some views of social value, impact measurement and management, and other related terms, argue it to be an unnecessary luxury or worse, a waste of resources. In honesty it is difficult to argue against such claims when all-too-many assessments of impacts are done solely to produce a single report to satisfy an external audience such as a potential funder (and in all too many cases, this is conducted towards the end of a funding cycle in an attempt to secure financing). When this is the case, the practice can rightly be viewed as a drain on finite resources that could likely be better allocated elsewhere. This is however a persistent misconception of the very purpose of assessing the impacts of any activity – and one that is highlights the ongoing requirement to better explain why organizations need to invest in impact assessments. This is examined in more detail later in this chapter, but at its core, impact management is about using insights from stakeholders, particularly those affected by decisions, to improve decision-making to increase impacts. Yes, there’s more detail to it than just this, but if we were to drill it down to its fundamental purpose, this is a reasonable place to start. So, whilst the legacy of SROI and social value certainly does have some roots in areas such as sustainability reporting and economic analysis, the most appropriate comparison is to account for financial value. There was a careful turn of phrase employed there  – being mindful to state ‘accounting for financial value’ and not ‘financial accounting’, as the latter has connotations of annual reports of performance to support the decisions of a select stakeholders, namely those with, or considering a financial stake. However, accounting for financial value is much more than this: it is an embedded function of all organizations that supports various decision-­makers, at various times, to make various forms of decisions. In summary, accounting for financial value can be identified as having two central and interconnected functions: • Optimizing the allocation of resources; and. • Managing the associated risks of making suboptimal choices.

38

A. Richards

The financial value accounting profession has been extremely successful in meeting these two functions – providing information to support the most efficient allocation of resources, and mitigating risk from suboptimal use of capital. Similarly, the imperative for radical improvements on how decisions impact people and the planet indicates the need to mirror these two functions when seeking to manage more than just the financial performance of an organization.

3.3.3 The Foundations of Impact At this point, it is important to unpick what is meant by the term ‘impacts’. Unlike financial impacts where the meanings of income expenditure and profits are relatively consistent – (social) impacts have the potential to be interpreted differently by different people. Thankfully one of the significant advancements over recent years has been a convergence of what such key terminology means, thanks in large part to initiatives such as the Impact Management Project.2 So, when we discuss non-financial impacts, there is a greater chance that we are talking about the changes that people experience in their lives as a consequence of an activity. We can be more specific: we are focused on elements or aspects of people’s wellbeing (this includes the planet’s wellbeing when we appreciate how changes to the environment affect people), that can be intentionally or unintentionally affected by any activity or investment (SVI 2022a). Numerous standard-setting organizations such as SVI, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the Sustainability Accountability Standards Board (SASB), and GIIN, have worked closely for a number of years to increase the levels of consensus on the terminology and norms of ‘impact management’. This is not to say that all entities agree on issues such as the urgency of the challenge, or the means by which to address these. It is, however, reasonable to say there is general agreement on what we mean by impact and impact management. Consensus around the ‘norms of impact’ identified five core dimensions (see Table  3.1). The first four dimensions address specific requirements for effective impact-data that are common demands from various approaches. It is perhaps the final dimension of risk that potentially adds further consideration than some would be familiar with, but as indicated above, this is a key element of effective impact management.

 Visit www.impactmanagementproject.com for details on the Project

2

3  Measuring and Managing Social Value: Myths and Opportunities

39

Table 3.1  Dimensions of impact Dimensions of impact WHAT WHO HOW MUCH CONTRIBUTION RISK

Brief explanation Identifies the outcomes experienced by stakeholders and their importance to those experiencing them. Identifies those stakeholders experiencing the outcomes. Identifies the amount of change to outcomes for stakeholders, how many experienced the changes, and for how long. Identifies the amount of change that can be claimed as a result of an activity. Identifies the likelihood that impact will not be as expected so organizations can work to mitigate associated risks.

Adapted from Impact Frontiers (2022)

3.3.4 Principles in Practice The reasonable degree of alignment on what needs to be measured makes clear what evidence is required. Supporting these data-requirements, the Principles of Social Value, and by extension the methodology of SROI provide a universal framework to ensure the evidence collected is fit-for-purpose to support different levels of decision-making. This section will not examine each Principle in detail (Fig. 3.1), this has been addressed by other accounts (see for example, Nicholls et  al. 2012; SVI 2021b). Rather, the focus is on the potential of the Principles as a framework to support organizations meet the fundamental requirement of effectively managing impacts by focusing on material concerns. For over 10 years, there was a consistent set of seven Principles of Social Value. That all changed in 2021/2022 with the introduction of an eighth Principle “Be Responsive”. And this is where discussion of the framework of Principles begins. To ‘Be Responsive’ (SVI 2022c) has essentially always been a Principle, albeit one that has perhaps been too implicit in relevant documentation. However, given it is the very purpose of impact management, it was introduced to make explicit that any account of impact must actively make use of insights to improve impact-­ performance. Without learning from, and responding to insights, the risk is that the process remains one of only measuring and not managing impacts. This Principle also reinforces the important difference between accounting for, and reporting on impacts. Unfortunately, as highlighted, the latter remains for too many the perceived purpose of impact measurement. Yet, it is the former that provides the potential value of the whole undertaking. In short, to be responsive is to use evidence garnered from the other Principles to make improvements. Again, just as with the function of accounting for financial value, when we discuss being responsive to stakeholder-informed insights to optimize impacts, there are multiple ‘levels’ of decision-makers that need to be supported. The levels of strategic, tactical, and operational decision-makers, require different presentations

40

A. Richards

Fig. 3.1  Principles of social value. (Social Value International 2022d)

of evidence, with varying degrees of granularity or aggregation, data quality, and assurance/verification to support the relative significance of the choices made. Application of the Principles with ‘enough precision for the decision’ is a useful rubric that outlines both the inherent flexibility of methods that can be employed and the multiple audiences and purposes that can be supported. Table 3.2 presents a broad overview of the types of decisions that ‘impact evidence’ can support, levels of associated risks, frequency of decisions, along with commensurate levels of precision and assurance /verification to provide decision-­ makers with sufficient confidence in the results.

3.3.5 Responding to What Matters for Stakeholders All organizational decision-makers should appreciate the likely ‘impact returns’ from their choices, and this includes an understanding of the distribution of returns between different stakeholders, as well as any potential trade-offs. Equally, decision

3  Measuring and Managing Social Value: Myths and Opportunities

41

Table 3.2  Types of impact decisions Likely cost or consequence if decision is wrong (risk) High

Type of decision Strategic: setting impact goals, targets & thresholds Tactical: choices Medium about different activities that could be deployed Operational: Low decisions to improve existing products/services

Data Frequency quality of decision required Annual High

Level of data aggregation/ granularity Aggregated overall results

Need for in-dependent assurance High

Quarterly

Medium

Medium – level of segments

Medium

Whenever possible

Low

Detailed – level of individuals/ segments

Low

Adapted from Aps et al. (2017) and SVI (2022c)

makers have a duty to consider the likely impact risks when they choose between different options. In truth, this remains one of the more challenging and under-­ developed elements of impact management in practice. All decisions carry risk – and it is essential to recognize that those assuming the risk are not the decision-makers – rather they are those that the decisions affect (see SVI 2022c for more detail on mitigating stakeholder risks). Stakeholders who are affected by decisions often have very little power to influence how these decisions are made and who they benefit. This is of course a very different situation to financial accounting where accounts of value are created to provide accountability between agent and principle – safeguarding that decisions create the maximum benefit of those with a financial stake. Yet, when it comes to decisions affecting those with a non-financial stake, the same mechanisms do not exist to anywhere near the same degree to maximize their benefit, or even minimize negative impacts they may experience. The key issue is establishing the boundaries of materiality for decision-makers. Traditional financial materiality is concerned with issues that present a real or potential risk to the financial performance of an organization. However, when examining impact risk, materiality must be viewed as issues relevant to both financial and non-financial impacts. Viewing the impacts an organization has on the world, as well as how the world impacts on the organization as material, reframes the approach from outside-in, to inside-out. This acceptance of the interdependence of social, environmental, and financial outcomes is critical to shifting the current paradigm; one that fails to provide the transformational capacity to deliver the necessary contributions to sustainable development.

42

A. Richards

Establishing the boundaries of materiality – that is identifying which stakeholder outcomes need to be managed, is the very purpose of the other Principles of Social Value. Judgements about the materiality of outcomes are based on assessments of relevance and significance (SVI 2021a), through a combination of stakeholder-­ informed qualitative and quantitative evidence respectively. For an outcome to be judged as material it needs to meet both of these requirements: • Relevance: a qualitative assessment of an outcome’s relevance to stakeholders, societal norms, and organizational financial objectives. • Significance: a quantitative assessment of the change to an outcome, constituting the depth and duration of change, its relative importance, and the contribution of the particular intervention. The prominence of stakeholder-evidence informing what is seen as material is perhaps the most important distinction between the Principles and alternative approaches to impact measurement and management. The need to identify what is material from the perspective of those affected by decisions indicates an intentional shift in power – where decision-makers, policy-makers, and other powerful actors do not exclusively determine what matters enough to be managed. And key to this is the genuine and active involvement of stakeholders when gathering data that can support judgements of materiality. Central to understanding what is material, is to ‘Involve Stakeholders’. This is the first Principle of Social Value, and is best-viewed as a consistent requirement to understand the potential and realized experiences of those affected by decisions. It is not merely an extractive process that seeks to evaluate, or worse confirm assumptions. At its core it means remembering that behind each data-point are people. Meaningful stakeholder engagement: where the experiences of people are respected and valued as sources of insights to support improvements, means effective involvement in the design and delivery stages of activities – with evidence of material outcomes supporting the implementation and improvement of activities (Bolinson et al. 2021). It means an open-mindedness to diverse perspectives, a willingness to understand the consequences of activities, and not a focus on intentionality and the goals of resource deployment. It means facilitating the collection and analysis of evidence that transparently reflects different experiences both between different stakeholders and within different segments of similar groups of people. Ultimately, it means responding to insights from the evidence to improve impacts experienced by those who are also the source of the insights. There is a common theme running through this chapter: that is, for decision-­ makers to be responsive to stakeholder-informed evidence, based on meaningful engagement of stakeholders to gather evidence that supports their decisions. To meet the needs of decision-makers to identify which outcomes are material and where resources can be more effectively utilized. Underlying this are consistent qualitative and quantitative evidence requirements, examined now by this chapter.

3  Measuring and Managing Social Value: Myths and Opportunities

43

3.3.6 Qualitative Data 3.3.6.1 Involving Stakeholders and Identifying Relevant Outcomes Identifying the outcomes of activities is fundamental to the whole impact management process. Importantly, going beyond just outputs that summarize activities delivered, outcomes refer to those aspects of people’s wellbeing that can be affected by activities both intentionally and unintentionally (Impact Frontiers 2022). These are the consequences or effects of how resources are deployed, and only when outcomes are understood can any activity be appraised in terms of its successes and failures. When an ‘impact report’ stops short of identifying the outcomes of activities, in reality it has no ability to be called a report on impacts. Discussions of only outputs such as the number of people worked with says nothing about their experiences, be they good or bad. This is consistently the case with the vast majority of ESG reporting. Evidence in 2017 (O’Connor and Labowitz 2017) highlighted that over 90% of reports reported only company efforts rather than their effects, and confusion over this middle-letter continues to prevail (see for example, Saul 2022). Therefore, when ESG reporting is labelled as impact reporting/management, this is mis-labelling – and such sentiments are increasingly starting to emerge as the ability of ESG reporting to shift practice to a more sustainable path is questioned (see for example, Michaux 2022; Pham 2022). So, outcome identification requires qualitative approaches that employ open-­ questioning, where stakeholders are afforded the space and confidence to provide a warts-and-all review of the outcomes they have, or are likely to experience from an intervention. Through such potentially messy, but ultimately rich data, it is possible to identify a range of outcome-sequences for different stakeholders. To focus resources on where optimal value can be created for stakeholders, it is important to identify the well-defined outcomes – these are the specific elements of wellbeing at the ends of the sequences that matter most to stakeholders (for more information on how to identify well-defined outcomes see SVI 2022b). At this stage the materiality assessment is applied to well-defined outcomes, and for those determined as relevant, they need also to be assessed for their significance through quantitative measures.

3.3.7 Quantitative Data 3.3.7.1 Amount of Changes Understanding the change to outcomes (or outcome depth) among people affected by an intervention, can provide valuable insights for how different segments of stakeholders’ experience changes – assisting in decisions to allocate resources to where they are required.

44

A. Richards

Quantifying the amount of change to an outcome requires a suitable indicator(s) to be employed. The level of rigor and detail required should shape the selection of metrics to provide suitable subjective and/or objective data to meet the needs of decision-makers. While it is may possible to measure the change to any outcome, the challenge will always be to ensure that measurement provides sufficient accuracy  – and in many cases, the level required will be quite achievable without the need for resource intensive approaches. Where a single indicator that asks the opinion of the subject provides enough precision for the decision, it is important that we do not seek further evidence, or even false-precision before we use the evidence to support choices. And where the data does not meet our needs, we can collect further subjective/ objective data from the same stakeholders and/or seek it from other sources. There are growing sets of standardized indicators (see for example, the Global Impact Investing Network’s IRIS+) designed to meet the appetite for comparable data. And in many cases, these indicators will provide useful options. However, in other cases, they may not. The latter case is not cause for concern. Studies of similar activities may yield suitable options that can be applied. Where this is not the case, the creation of bespoke indicators can solve the challenges we face. It may even be that given the specificity of the stakeholders, their outcomes and the decisions being supported, self-created indicators may be the best option. It is, however, essential to go beyond measuring the amount of change to outcomes. All organizations can measure the changes they create for stakeholders, but crucial questions about how much change is enough need to be asked. This means establishing both thresholds and targets to create impact expectations. The former represents minimum expectations for performance to be considered positive, based on societal norms/stakeholder needs; whilst the latter should represent ambitious levels of impact-performance. These impact expectations are essential if an organization truly wants to be held to account for its impacts. This essentially means that decision-makers are able to better understand if resources are being utilized to create changes that meet the needs of stakeholders and can be claimed as contributing to sustainable development. When impact performance is frequently compared to expectations (in line with approaches to accounting for financial performance), timely evidence is provided to support improvements to activities – increasing the ability to be responsive and accountable to stakeholders. Alternatively, without the ability to compare performance to expectations we are in the situation where any amounts of change may be (incorrectly) viewed as positive. 3.3.7.2 Duration of Changes The duration of time to measure change to a well-defined outcome is the next measure of significance. The judgements made around time need to ensure that positive changes are measured for long-enough to provide confidence they are meaningful

3  Measuring and Managing Social Value: Myths and Opportunities

45

for stakeholders experiencing them, and that negative changes do not sustain beyond a point of acceptability for those affected. Stakeholders themselves can be a useful source in defining the time variable, as can other impact studies or relevant secondary evidence. The challenge in practice is that well-defined outcomes will often occur after collaboration with stakeholders has ended. However, this is not reason enough to abandon attempts to engage with what will likely be samples of stakeholders to understand the sustainability of changes they experience. Claims of impact often cite the long-term effects of interventions. If not supported by appropriate evidence, these are not only unsubstantiated, they also increase the risk that decisions taken are suboptimal. The need to develop longitudinal data is therefore crucial. However, data relating to intermediate outcomes, and evidence of causal links to well-defined outcomes can also be used to support decisions. 3.3.7.3 Relative Importance of Changes: Valuation Measures of outcome depth, as well as consideration of the duration of measurement are fairly standard concerns for assessments of impacts. One of the more contentious elements relates to the valuation of stakeholder-changes. Even for some who accept the need, concerns center on stakeholders’ ability to value their own experiences. These are often accompanied by implicit or even explicit statements about the nature of the stakeholders in question, their cognitive abilities, or simply their ability to process what is best for them. There are instances where stakeholders face insurmountable challenges to value their own experiences – but this is not true in most cases. Perhaps therefore statements about people’s inability to value their own experiences are better thought of as unconsciously demonstrating power imbalances between decision-makers and those affected by them. Within many such statements is also an assumption of value-neutrality in decision-making. In reality, all choices between different options include appraisals of which will create more or most value, with the key difference being who makes such value-judgements. There are also largely unwarranted criticisms that stakeholder valuations provide subjective results (Salathé-Beaulieu 2019). Value is inherently subjective  – what different people are willing to pay for the same product demonstrates this every day. The purpose of valuation is not to provide objective truth, it is to appreciate the relative importance of different changes experienced by stakeholders. It is to equip decision-makers with improved evidence of where they can consequently create most value for stakeholders. There are some exciting developments that recognize the need to value the wellbeing of people (see for example, the Value Accounting Network and Harvard Business School’s Impact-Weighted Accounting initiative). However, there are also risks that calls for the standardization of value prevail and consistent valuations are applied to all people – with an algorithmic or mean value applied to everyone (or

46

A. Richards

extremely large groups of people within a population). When we assume everyone values the same things equally, our decisions to focus on what people value the most will be wrong – often. When we understand the value of changes, we have for the first time, a consistent unit of measurement. We no longer have different outcomes measured using different indicators, we have a means of more transparent comparison. This can be achieved with a numeric scale, where stakeholders are asked to value from low to high or one-to-ten for example. It can also be achieved using the language of money to represent the value of changes. The application of financial proxies that represent, or approximate, the value of changes serves the exact same purpose as quantification of value, albeit with the additional use of dollar, rupiah, or rupee currency symbols. Crucially, stakeholder preferences for their different changes need to be mirrored when the language of money is used to demonstrate value. This means if a change in an outcome is rated as twice the value of another when using a numeric scale, the difference in monetary value must equally be two-to-one. If not, we are no longer respecting the views and voices of stakeholders, and the risk of making suboptimal choices is increased. It is the comparison of the value generated by activities to the value of the resources required to deliver the activities that provides the additional benefit of monetizing the value of changes. This is the ability to calculate a series of results including net present value and SROI. SROI aggregates results to provide an efficiency-ratio of how a single unit of value generates (creates and/or destroys) value for all materially affected stakeholders. However, attempts at ratio-inflation, where ever-larger financial proxies are used to exaggerate value, and questions about how one investment compares to others, mean that without much doubt this is the most mis-used and mis- understood element of impact measurement respectively. The desire to compare SROI across different activities is somewhat understandable. Financial return on investment is used to support choices to invest in one option over others. However, even such seemingly objective assessments (they are not) are unlikely to be used without additional evidence. Questions about the nature of the investment and concerns about risk are also essential for effective decision-making. The additional subjectivity within analyses of impacts experienced by people, means that the ability to readily compare different SROI analyses presents extra challenges. The greatest value in applying SROI comes instead from intra-­ comparison – comparing the direction of travel of the same activity and comparing this to expectations of impact performance. Subsequently, this evidence can also be used to make indirect but meaningful comparisons between different options. Assessing how different activities in a portfolio compare to targets, can inform choices about resource allocation between the options. Similarly, portfolio-wide SROI targets such as those implemented by the Shaping Impact Group that incorporate assessment of likely impact-risk as well as expected impact-returns can also help to influence the selection of investments or

3  Measuring and Managing Social Value: Myths and Opportunities

47

interventions implemented (see Shaping Impact Group 2021). A diverse portfolio of activities/investments that balance impact returns and impact risks can provide an organization with balances in line with stakeholder needs and risk tolerance. 3.3.7.4 Estimating Contribution to Changes The final quantitative element estimates the contribution, or additionality of an activity, and provides organizations with the ability to confidently understand, manage, and report their impacts. Doing so reduces important risks of over-claiming and the associated criticisms of impact washing. And, although this is oft-highlighted as one of the most significant risks to the very movement of impact management (GIIN 2020), there are further benefits to appreciating this issue. Estimations of counterfactual, which indicate the amount of change generated that would likely happen without an intervention, can help indicate where resources can be used to create greater impacts. Insights where different segments of stakeholders are significantly more likely than others to experience changes without the support of an organization can influence how services are provided, and even in some cases influence selection criteria. Like much in impact management, there are different options to estimate counterfactual. Abiding by the Principle to “Involve stakeholders”, direct feedback from those affected should be the consistent starting position. Where greater accuracy is required, additions of secondary evidence of similar initiatives, statistical testing, quasi-experimental (non-randomized) control groups, or randomized control trials (RCTs) can provide meaningful evidence. The mantra of enough precision for the decision is again that which guides appropriate selection of methods – ensuring that evidence is no less accurate, nor more accurate than required. In addition to appreciating what can be largely categorized as systemic, or non-­ identified factors that would affect both an intervention and comparison group, impact assessments need also to explicitly consider the attribution of other actors specific to an intervention group. Although there are risks of cross-over with counterfactual, this consideration provides a further opportunity for a reality-check on the impacts of any intervention. Based on stakeholder feedback of those affected, as well as others with valuable insights, attribution can identify additional stakeholders not considered to-date. Such evidence can result in insights to reduce duplicated efforts and identify opportunities for the co-creation of increased impacts. There remain other issues to ensure accounts appropriately represent value over time, and information on important issues such as drop-off and discount rates is available in the Nicholls et al. (2012) guide on SROI. When these final issues are considered, and where the Principles of Social Value have been applied to provide completeness of material outcomes with a level of accuracy that provides enough precision for the decision, organizations will have a greater understanding of the outcomes that matter to their stakeholders and require ongoing management.

48

A. Richards

3.3.8 Transparency and Verification Maintaining focus on ensuring that impact-evidence is used to support decision-­ making, the Principles “be transparent” and “verify the result” serve to provide sufficient confidence to those making choices, just as they do for accounts of financial impacts. Being transparent means explaining methods employed along with any limitations that ultimately highlight how materiality judgements were made. This is supported by the need to verify the results, which at a minimum means ensuring that affected stakeholders are able to provide scrutiny. Additionally, when social value accounts are being used to support strategic-­ level choices and/or decision-makers who are unable to view the detail of assessments (e.g., funders/policy makers) this Principle will need to be applied with greater rigor. Therefore, as well as establishing appropriate internal checks and balances, there is the need for independent assurance and/or audit. A brief description of each Principle is described in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3  Outline of each principle Principle of social value 1. Involve stakeholders 2. Understand what changes 3. Value the things that matter 4. Only include what is material 5. Do not over-claim

6. Be transparent 7. Verify the result 8. Be responsive

Adapted from SVI (2021b)

Brief description Meaningful engagement of stakeholders is central to identify evidence and insights to support decision-making. Identify relevant outcomes, the depth of change that stakeholders experience, how many people experience each change, and how long they last. Understand the quantified relative importance that stakeholders place on different changes they experience. Focus resources on managing those outcomes that matter most to stakeholders, society, and organizational goals. Ensure that the contribution of specific activities/investments is estimated to avoid claims of impact-washing and identify where re-sources can be best allocated. Demonstrate the basis by which accounts are accurate, truthful, and fair. Ensure appropriate levels of verification so that decision-makers have sufficient confidence in results and understand associated risks. Pursue optimum social value based on insights from stakeholderinformed evidence – making timely decisions that meet the needs of stakeholders and societal goals.

3  Measuring and Managing Social Value: Myths and Opportunities

49

3.4 Challenges with Solutions Having outlined the increasingly recognized potential of impact management, this section outlines three key challenges that restrict the development of the practice. There a number of common concerns raised by organizations that restrict the advancement of the practice, and these can perhaps be grouped into three main interrelated themes: costs, capacity and accountability. These are addressed below.

3.4.1 Challenge Number 1: Impact Measurement Needs to Be Viewed as an Investment Not a Cost Inescapably, there are costs to measure the impacts of activities. Not just financial, but also other resources that create opportunity costs. It is a reasonable concern of anyone to think about how best to deploy their limited resources  – especially if something is viewed as a cost and not an investment. Yet, increasingly the overwhelming view is that measuring impacts can lead to improved decision-making results in a better allocation of those finite resources, increased financial and social value creation, benefits to recruitment and retention, improved customer relations and risk management. A key to shifting the mindset of decision-makers lies in being able to demonstrate the value their investment can create, and the mitigation of risks by viewing materiality from an inside-out position. This is not the easiest of tasks. It may even entail challenging conversations about the need to invest more than was initially envisaged; from the anticipated costs of a one-off impact or SROI report to the investment required for an impact management framework. Such a shift is fundamentally crucial in progressing the conversation from a focus on impact measurement to impact management. Although this naturally poses additional challenges, it is more likely to assist with those pervasive mindset questions about “what’s in it for me”? If we only produce annual impact reports, we are likely to be focused on satisfying a limited range of decision-makers – usually those external to the organization such as investors or funders. Consequently, it is understandable why the production of only annual (or even less frequent) reports for external audiences is viewed by many as being a costly burden. They are top-down pressures, often with demands to report on specific metrics that may not reflect the lived reality of those stakeholders affected by the activities being reviewed. This means they rarely offer value to the organization that is diverting resources away from delivery to measurement. Impact management can provide value to organizations – but to do so, it needs to be viewed as a means of supporting operational, tactical, and strategic decisions. To optimize impacts, the same approach needs to be applied as our approach to financial accounting – so we account for impacts, not just report them. Otherwise, it is likely, and understandably, to be viewed as an unnecessary burden.

50

A. Richards

3.4.2 Challenge Number 2: Impact Management Requires People and Organizations to Have the Necessary Capacities Impact management is a journey – one where no one is at the beginning nor the end. It is a journey to create an embedded organizational system, and in reality, this can take some time. However, given the imperative for rapid change, time is a luxury we do not have much of. There are some legitimate questions asked regarding how to implement an impact management system. Where to begin and what sort of data collection and analysis is required are reasonable issues to query. Yet, increasing consensus and convergence about what impact management looks like and how to do it, address many of these challenges. It is unlikely that many entrepreneurs, managers, board members, or investors, followed their path with an intention of establishing impact management frameworks. However, it is also equally unlikely that the same people were primarily motivated to establish financial accounting systems, or human resource services, or marketing strategies – but these internal capacities are viewed as essential to the successful operation of most organizations. So, to meet goals of creating financial value, organizations invest in multiple supportive requirements, and to do so develop internal capacity and/or engage third-­ parties. Similarly, there is a growing wealth of resources available to support internal capacity development to manage impacts, as well as sources of external expertise. However, we should remain mindful that no one is at the beginning of this journey. We are all doing some of what is required already – we are probably engaging with some stakeholders and using insights gained to improve what we are doing. Increasing our capacity to do this with greater systemization and transparency means we can do it more explicitly and more often – increasing the likelihood that our decisions will be effective.

3.4.3 Challenge Number 3: We Are Not Held to Account for Our Impacts on People and the Planet to the Same Extent as Our Financial Impacts This is probably the most significant challenge to embedding and scaling impact management practice. If it is not mandatory or being demanded from those who can hold us to account, why would we want to engage in practices that requires additional investment and new or improved capacities? Going back to both of the preceding challenges, there may be some defense in such stances. If the value of investment in impact management is not appreciated and what is required seems unrealistic, it is somewhat understandable to state there

3  Measuring and Managing Social Value: Myths and Opportunities

51

is no need to improve social value accounting. However, the core of why impact management is not yet mainstream is simple – we are not obligated to do it. Claims that an organization is too small to undertake impact management practices, or that we are unable to do so with satisfactory levels of rigor are not only excuses, they also serve to maintain existing power imbalances between those with power (e.g. providers of capital and those making decisions) and those with less power (i.e., those who are affected by decisions). This stance also significantly increases the risk that the decisions being taken are suboptimal. No one ever says that an organization is too small to account for its financial value. No matter the aim of the organization, financial accounting is a given – we do it because we are mandated to do it  – we are accountable for our financial performance and there are consequences for ineffective management. We may lose our jobs or lose our investment – so we cannot imagine a situation where we would not account for our financial performance. But when it comes to our social performance, we are unlikely to lose our jobs or our investment (although there are increasing signs of change here) – in short, we are not accountable for it. It can also be viewed as a challenge to the decision-making power of some – where choices will require greater levels of evidence from other sources and rely less on their own intuition. Even for social purpose organizations this can result in cognitive dissonance  – where held beliefs and best-intentions are challenged. Therefore, even if we are able to convince decision-makers of the value of impact management in principle, in practice there remains the challenge to use evidence even if it contradicts existing behaviors and actions. However, this situation is changing. National and international level legislation is moving to demand increased accountability for non-financial impacts. For example, the European Union’s Directive 2014/95/EU requires disclosure on non-­ financial performance from some large companies, and nations such as New Zealand, Wales, and the UK have introduced or increased demands for wellbeing or social value to be incorporated into issues such as public procurement and policy development. Other developments such as the International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) Foundation creating a new International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) also signal increasing recognition of the need for organizations to effectively report on performance beyond just financial. However, the limiting materiality concerns to an entity’s value and the focus on reporting rather than accounting for impacts indicate that at present this do not go far enough to instill significant change in how organizations make decisions. Importantly, in addition to more formalized pressures to change, increasing societal demands are making clear the need for more responsible and sustainable practices. These make it clear that demands for broader accountability will only continue to increase. This is extremely positive and will likely scale the uptake of impact management so more organizations realize the benefits – helping to further reduce claims that impact management is unnecessary.

52

A. Richards

3.5 The Next Step: Managing for Impacts The challenges outlined demonstrate some of the intertwined barriers that restrict necessary progress. Additionally, even for the most committed organization there have been significant gaps in advice and guidance limiting their ability to effectively embed impact management and create sustainable practices. The need for data that reflects stakeholder-experiences to support various decision-­making functions requires effective systems and processes throughout an organization. Essentially, there is the need to develop and embed a decision-making framework – and this is no easy task. Where to start, what to include, and which of the existing standards to align with are important questions that require a dedication that is either beyond the means or motivation of most entities. However, recently developed by SDG Impact, an initiative of the UNDP, the SDG Impact Standards provide a solution that can provide the missing link between rhetoric, or good intention, and reality. The Standards provide guidance for enterprises, private equity investments, bond markets (SDG Impact 2021), and Development Financial Institutions (OECD 2021b). They recognize that whilst the SDGs are the most commonly employed reference to sustainable development (Bass et  al. 2020), there is a collective failure to create the impacts necessary to contribute to sustainable development and the global goals. Importantly, the Standards are not performance or reporting standards – they are decision-making standards. They are designed to make high-level impact management principles such as the Principles of Social Value achieve the scale of change required within organizations. To do this, each Standard is based on four interrelated themes of strategy, management approaches, governance, and transparency. The Standards provide an ambitious, yet achievable roadmap for organizations to integrate impact management with 12 business actions, with specific practice indicators, aligned to the themes that highlight for an organization what is required from commitment to operate responsibly and sustainably, to ensuring that governing bodies lead by example (SDG Impact 2021). Although they may appear potentially daunting when viewed in their entirety, each indicator represents a logical requirement that is neither radical nor insurmountable. Table  3.4 outlines examples of Business Actions and practice indicators for each of the core themes. The Impact Practice Standards represent the next important milestone in the journey of impact management. They take the movement to its next and likely one of its most crucial and impactful stages, where we progress from impact management to managing for impacts. In truth, only when all decisions are supported by evidence of impacts on all materially affected stakeholders can we realize the ambitions of the moon-shot commitment of all United Nations Member States.

3  Measuring and Managing Social Value: Myths and Opportunities

53

Table 3.4  SDG impact standards; examples of key themes, business actions and practice indicators Core theme Strategy

Management approaches

Transparency

Governance

Business action Action 1. Commit to operating responsibly and sustain-ably, contributing positively to the SDGs, and optimizing impact Action 6. Align organizational culture, structure, capabilities, systems, and incentives with purpose and strategy

Practice indicators Decide that operating responsibly and sustainably, and contributing positively to the SDGs is central to business purpose (1.1.1)

Embed respect for human rights, planetary boundaries, and other responsible business practices in policies and procedures (2.1.1, 2.1.2) Develop outside-in ways of working, involving stakeholders in decision-making, engaging with government bodies, and collaborating with peers and potential partners on collective solutions (2.1.3, 2.1.4) Develop capacity, integrate accountability, and align incentives with purpose and strategy (2.1.5) Action 10. Disclose how Disclose/report in line with the sustainable responsible business practices, development goal disclosure (SDGD) sustainability and contributing recommendations, stakeholder needs, and positively to the SDGs are relevant laws and regulations (3.1, 3.3, 3.5) integrated into decision-making Communicate impact performance and report on performance consistently and in context (3.2) Disclose policies concerning human rights and other re-sponsible business practices (3.4) Have impact/sustainability reports assured and implement recommendations (3.6) Action 11. Integrate Governing body has oversight of the responsible business and Enterprise’s integration of sustainability and impact management practices contributing positively to the SDGs into its into governance framework purpose, strategy, risk management and decision-making practices and its responsible business and impact management practices and performance (4.1) The Enterprise’s parent and/or holding company has policies, practices and performance relating to governance and responsible business practices, consistent with the requirements set out in these standards (4.3)

Adapted from SDG Impact (2021)

3.6 Conclusions Personally, I remain an eternal optimist, albeit one that is consistently frustrated. I know that systems change take time, and what is required is a direct challenge to entrenched power structures. But I also know we are proven to be remarkably adaptable when we need to be, and now is absolutely a time to demonstrate this again – and more so than ever.

54

A. Richards

Addressing the challenges we face is critical. The current situation for the human species is one of now or potentially never. We are at the precipice where action is urgently required to avoid further devastation. Extending practice to where managing for impacts is part of how organizations operate is crucial for a more sustainable and equitable future we all want and need. The last 15–20 years has witnessed developments to the profession of social value accounting that are amazing in many ways – but all this will count for nothing if we do not harness what we have and rapidly build upon this. So, what are the key next steps organizations need to make? The answer to what we need to do is reasonably simple, although the practice will certainly be more challenging for some. In short, we need to account for the impacts that activities create. This means applying a principled-approach to impact management that meaningfully involves the stakeholders affected by choices, so organizations can respond to where they can optimize their impacts. This is a shift in both mindset and practice that will challenge existing power-­ structures. But it is also the key to meeting stakeholder and societal needs. In practice this means ensuring that impacts are an essential part of decision-making – it means embedding in strategy and governance, creating the management approaches, and being transparent in how decisions are influenced. The practical imperatives indicate what should also be a priority for research – rapidly understanding and disseminating successes and failures in how organizations manage for impacts. We need examples of practice, not where an entity has measured the impacts of some of their work, but where they are demonstrating commitment to systematically managing how their resources and choices affect the lives of people and the planet. The time for excuses is over – impact management can no longer be viewed as an unnecessary luxury. It is an essential part of decision-making that has the potential to harness the power of stakeholders – meaning we can make better decisions where effects on people and the planet are seen as important to decision-making – because they are!

References Ahmed N, Marriott A, Dabi N et al (2022) Inequality kills: the unparalleled action needed to combat unprecedented inequality in the wake of COVID-19. Oxfam International, Oxford. https:// doi.org/10.21201/2022.8465 Aps J, Carpenter B, Fortuna A et al (2017) Maximise your impact: a guide for social entrepreneurs. Estonian Social Enterprise Network, Koç University Social Impact Forum, Mikado Sustainable Development Consulting and Social Value UK. https://socialvalueuk.org/resource/maximise-­ impact/. Accessed 16 Aug 2022 Bass R et al (2020) The state of impact management and measurement practice: second edition. Global Impact Investing Network [GIIN] BlackRock (2022) The power of capitalism. https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/investor-­ relations/larry-­fink-­ceo-­letter. Accessed 16 Aug 2022

3  Measuring and Managing Social Value: Myths and Opportunities

55

Bolinson C et al (2021) Building capacity for engaging stakeholders to better understand and manage social impact. https://www.impactterms.org/download/plp-­policy-­capacity-­building/?wpd mdl=1919&refresh=62abf130bd6571655435568. Accessed 16 Aug 2022 Business Roundtable (2019) Business roundtable redefines the purpose of a corporation to promote ‘an economy that serves all Americans’. https://www.businessroundtable.org/ business-­roundtable-­redefines-­the-­purpose-­of-­a-­corporation-­to-­promote-­an-­economy-­that-­ serves-­all-­americans. Accessed 16 Aug 2022 Chancel L, Piketty T, Saez E et  al (2022) World inequality report 2022. World Inequality Lab. https://wir2022.wid.world/executive-­summary/. Accessed 24 Aug 2022 Global Impact Investment Network [GIIN] (2020) 2020 annual impact investor survey. https:// thegiin.org/research/publication/impinv-­survey-­2020. Accessed 16 Aug 2022 Impact Frontiers (2022) Impact management norms. https://impactfrontiers.org/norms/. Accessed 24 Aug 2022 Michaux F (2022) Sustainability disclosures are turning into tick-box exercises. SustainableViews https://www.sustainableviews.com/sustainability-­d isclosures-­a re-­t urning-­i nto-­t ick-­b ox-­ exercises/. Accessed 24 Aug 2022 Nicholls J (2016) Social return on investment  – development and convergence. Eval Program Plann 64:127–135 Nicholls J, Lawlor E, Neitzert E et al (2012) A guide to social return on investment. The SROI Network. https://www.socialvalueint.org/guide-­to-­sroi. Accessed 25 Aug 2022 O’Connor C, Labowitz S (2017) Putting the “S” in ESG: measuring human rights performance for investors. NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights. https://static1.squarespace.com/ static/547df270e4b0ba184dfc490e/t/58cad912e58c6274180b58b6/1489688854754/Metrics-­ Report-­final-­1.pdf. Accessed 24 Aug 2022 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2021a) Global outlook on financing for sustainable development 2021: a new way to invest for people and planet. https:// www.oecd.org/development/global-­outlook-­on-­financing-­for-­sustainable-­development-­2021-­ e3c30a9a-­en.htm. Accessed 24 Aug 2022 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2021b) OECD-UNDP impact standards for financing sustainable development. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi. org/10.1787/744f982e-­en Pham L (2022) ESG investing is heading for a reckoning, says one veteran manager. Bloomberg https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-­06-­06/esg-­veteran-­says-­purge-­is-­coming-­as-­ rate-­hikes-­hit-­portfolios/. Accessed 24 Aug 2022 Salathé-Beaulieu G (2019) Sustainable development impact indicators for social and solidarity economy: state of the art. UNRISD working paper no. 2019–4. In: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD), Geneva Saul J (2022) Fixing the S in ESG.  Stanford Social Innovation Review. https://ssir.org/articles/ entry/fixing_the_s_in_esg. Accessed 24 Aug 2022 SDG Impact (2021). About the SDG impact standards. [UNDP] United Nations Development Programme. https://sdgimpact.undp.org/assets/About-­the-­SDG-­Impact-­Standards.pdf. Accessed 24 Aug 2022 Shaping Impact Group (2021) SI2 fund impact report 2020–2021. https://shapingimpact.group/ nieuws/si2-­fund-­impact-­report-­2020-­2021. Accessed 27 Aug 2022 Social Value International [SVI] (2021a) Standard on applying principle 4: only include what is material. https://www.socialvalueint.org/principle4-­only-­include-­what-­is-­material. Accessed 24 Aug 2022 Social Value International [SVI] (2021b) The principles of social value. https://static1.squarespace. com/static/60dc51e3c58aef413ae5c975/t/6127b55936e97e03e86297ea/1629992289441/ Principles+of+Social+Value+.pdf. Accessed 24 Aug 2022 Social Value International [SVI] (2022a) Standards and guidance. https://www.socialvalueint.org/ standards-­and-­guidance. Accessed 24 Aug 2022

56

A. Richards

Social Value International [SVI] (2022b) Standard on applying principle 2: understand what changes. https://www.socialvalueint.org/principle-­2-­understand-­what-­changes. Accessed 24 Aug 2022 Social Value International [SVI] (2022c) Standard on applying principle 8: be responsive. https:// www.socialvalueint.org/principle-­8-­be-­responsive. Accessed 24 Aug 2022 Social Value International [SVI] (2022d) The principles. https://www.socialvalueint.org/principles. Accessed 24 Aug 2022 The New  Yorker (2022) The Daily Humour Newsletter. https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/ a16995. Accessed 24 Aug 2022 United Nations (2019) Citing $2.5 Trillion Annual Financing Gap during SDG Business Forum Event, Deputy Secretary-General Says Poverty Falling Too Slowly. https://www.un.org/press/ en/2019/dsgsm1340.doc.htm. Accessed 24 Aug 2022 Wilkinson R, Pickett K (2009) The spirit level: why more equal societies almost always do better. Allen Lane, London World Economic Forum (2021) It will take another 136 years to close the global gender gap. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/04/136-­y ears-­i s-­t he-­e stimated-­j ourney-­t ime-­t o-­ gender-­equality/. Accessed 24 Aug 2022

Chapter 4

Advancing Gender Equity and Equality in Climate: Analyzing the Gender and Social Value of Climate Interventions Bonnie Chiu, Linda Weisert, and Corina Campian

4.1 Introduction: The Importance of Gender Equity and Equality in Climate In 2018, the former Irish president and UN rights commissioner Mary Robinson said that climate change is “a man-made problem with a feminist solution” (Tabary 2018). This quote highlights the interdependence of gender and climate and the importance of considering gender in solutions that seek to address climate change. Women’s greater dependence on and unequal access to resources mean that they are disproportionately affected by environmental degradation and climate change, and women and girls make up 80% of people who are displaced by climate change (Women’s Environmental Network 2016). Systemic inequality also means that women are constrained in their ability to take climate action. For instance, between 2011 and 2018, women comprised only 29% of featured speakers at international ocean science conferences (Azcona et al. 2021), and only 20% of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) authors (Gay-Antaki and Liverman 2018) meaning that their voices are mostly absent at the highest levels of policy-making. The United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP) is the key decision-­ making body on climate and a key forum for countries to announce their climate ambitions and commitments. However, globally only 21% of government ministers are women (UN Women 2020), meaning the COP negotiations are gender imbalanced. What is more, negotiations of this sort lead to worse political outcomes: evidence suggests that women who are economically empowered or in leadership B. Chiu (*) The Social Investment Consultancy, London, UK e-mail: [email protected] L. Weisert · C. Campian Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, London, UK © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 W. Nikolakis, R. Moura da Veiga (eds.), Social Value, Climate Change and Environmental Stewardship: Insights from Theory and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23145-2_4

57

58

B. Chiu et al.

positions take wiser decisions on agricultural practices and water use, for instance (Women Deliver 2018). The evidence above are focused on women, but illustrate a wider picture of climate change affecting disproportionately minorities, including gender minorities. We also know that gender inequalities  – including in sexual and reproductive health and rights, education, and access to jobs – reinforce and multiply the adverse impacts of climate change, and vice versa. Many geographies in Africa with the worst-performing indicators on education, sexual and reproductive health rights, and livelihoods also face high and growing climate risk. In turn, climate shocks worsen outcomes for girls, especially in education (Porter 2021). Gender equality considerations have been integrated into the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) discussions since 2001, and it has been a stand-alone item in the COP since 2012 (OECD 2021). Women leaders at COP 21 played a key role in developing final text that promoted gender-­ responsive action in addressing climate change (UNEP 2018). At the same time, Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 13, focused on climate action, only has one indicator providing a gender dimension, despite the documented evidence on the linkages between SDG 5 and SDG 13. Increasingly, the private sector is also paying more attention to climate change and its intersection with gender. For instance, a working group consisting of 80 investors came together to advance climate investments that not only empower women, but also deliver significant climate outcomes and foster a just transition at the systems level, i.e. at the highest levels of power and policies (Biegel and Lambin 2021). In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, addressing the intersection of climate and gender and social inequality is critical for a successful just and green economic recovery. In the context of climate change, it is important to consider gender equity, which “refers to fairness or justice in the way people are treated, with consideration of historical and socially determined disadvantages”, as it leads to gender equality, meaning “equal rights, responsibilities for women, men, girls, boys and individuals with non-binary gender identity” (Allinson 2021, p. ix). The focus on gender, which describes the socially determined attributes assigned to women and men and other gender minorities, is also helpful to understand “gendered social relations and power dynamics” (Hill et al. 2021, p. 230), thereby looking more deeply at the systemic nature of the issues. We note that gender inequalities intersect with other structural inequalities including class, race/ethnicity, physical ability, sexuality, religion, and age – known as intersectionality. In fact, true gender equality cannot be achieved without taking an intersectional lens, therefore gender equity mainstreaming strategies need to fundamentally include intersectional approaches if these are to address systemic barriers. To illustrate the interlinkages between gender and climate, this chapter will adopt the following conceptual framework (Table 4.1). Given the focus on intersectionality and structural issues, attitudes, narratives and norms in relation to gender are a cross-cutting category, such as higher levels of concern among women and girls on climate issues.

4  Advancing Gender Equity and Equality in Climate: Analyzing the Gender and…

59

Table 4.1  Interlinkages between gender and climate Dimension Cause of climate change Impact of climate change Solutions to climate change

Explanation Whereby factors leading to climate change are gendered, for example in economic terms, transport, and energy use Whereby effects of climate change disproportionately affect women and girls and other gender minorities Whereby solutions to climate change are gendered, for example the importance of women and girls in tackling climate change (such as women’s role in accelerating the shift towards sustainable consumption patterns), or their role in progressive climate policy design

Adapted from OECD (2022) and UNFCCC (2020)

Drawing on a conceptual framework of interlinkages between gender and climate, this chapter provides examples of outcomes and indicators that can be used in gender-integrated social value analysis in climate interventions.

4.2 The Importance of Social Value in Promoting Gender Equity in Climate Given the disproportionate, adverse impact of climate change on women and girls and other minorities, and their crucial role in tackling climate change, it is important that climate interventions advance gender equity – to achieve gender equality and deliver positive climate outcomes. But how is it possible to ascertain whether a climate intervention is positively advancing gender equity?

4.2.1 Social Value Helps Us Understand the True Impact of Climate Interventions, Which Affect Women and Men Differently – But It Is Often Not Applied Across the Board A way of doing so is applying the concept of social value, which is about “understanding the relative importance of changes that people experience and using the insights we gain from this understanding to make better decisions” (SVI 2022). A study reviewing the social impacts of large dam projects (Tilt et al. 2009) has found that there is a difference in the impacts experienced by women and men, and learning about these impacts can avert potential harm on women and the most vulnerable. In particular, women reported increased workloads, the burden of having to make more household purchases, decreased nutritional status in some cases, less access to gatherable resources, and less access to the compensation benefits from the development authority. The differences in impact of climate interventions on women and

60

B. Chiu et al.

other gender minorities versus men are echoed by other studies. A review of market-­ based conservation approaches, such as Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) and Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+), has found that there are gender-differentiated costs and benefits from these schemes (Kariuku and Birner 2016). For instance, in two out of three conservation schemes reviewed in Kenya, only 1–2% of members were female, and “sons would represent their mothers at meetings and/or receive payments on their behalf” (Kariuku and Birner 2016, p. 436). Understanding gendered impacts using the concept of social value enable programme implementers and policy makers to take decisions in time to avert negative consequences, which would otherwise be overlooked. While social impact assessments have become standard practice within some environmental disciplines, such as in relation to large dam projects since the formation of the World Commission on Dams (Tilt et al. 2009), they are not always prominent in global environmental governance and policy making. Central to this challenge is that while participation of a broad group of social actors in global governance may be implicit or is encouraged, in practice there are many barriers that inhibit meaningful participation, including access to resources and ability to build viable transnational movements. For example, women’s movements have been struggling for many years to challenge dominant norms and practices in global environmental governance in a way that champions grassroots women’s groups located in different social and cultural contexts (Bretherton 2003).

4.2.2 Even When There Are Social Value Considerations, a Gender Lens Is Often Missing Even when social value is considered, gender considerations are often excluded from this analysis. The literature review of 200 references of PES schemes included above also noted that less than 5% dealt with gender-related aspects of PES, and the authors have found a pervasive ‘gender blindness’ as gender biases are rarely addressed in these market-based conservation schemes (Kariuku and Birner 2016). Looking at climate finance, which has grown exponentially in recent years, social value measurement and reporting is also gaining traction in that space. Among fund managers of green bond funds, only around 45% of them are tracking their fund’s contribution to Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 5, gender equality, compared to almost all tracking their fund’s contribution to SDG 7, affordable and clean energy, and SDG 13, climate action (Environmental Finance 2021). This is despite the demonstrated catalytic and multiplier effects of SDG 5 on the other SDGs. For instance, SDG 5 and SDG 13 are intimately linked, given the fact that women are disproportionately affected by climate-related hazards and natural disasters, and their important roles in resources management, adaptation and mitigation (OECD 2021).

4  Advancing Gender Equity and Equality in Climate: Analyzing the Gender and…

61

The lack of a gender lens is pervasive across climate finance, among financial products that explicitly acknowledge social impact. The Global Innovation Lab for Climate Finance, established in 2014, aims to drive investment to action on climate change and sustainable development. It has mobilised USD $3 billion in sustainable investment, and on their platform listing 72 transformative green finance instruments (The Global Innovation Lab for Climate Finance 2022), only one investment, focused on increasing clean energy access in Rwanda, mentioned gender equality. Reasons for the lack of gender considerations include lack of gender-specific data, and challenges with measurement (Biegel and Lambin 2021, p. 14): Gender-specific data are still simply not collected across many economic indicators such as pay gaps, informal economy participation, entrepreneurship, and economic mobility; health indicators like disability; and environment indicators like land and resource rights… Changes in gender equity and attitudes, which are embedded in slow-moving social systems, are challenging to measure.

This has led to investors not taking into account the gendered impact of climate finance. This challenge exists not only among investors, but also among governments. A publication reviewing 20 Commonwealth Members’ Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which are public documents of the countries’ intent to reduce greenhouse gases as part of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, has found that only 10% of countries use sex-disaggregated data, and have developed gender-related programme indicators (Allinson 2021).

4.2.3 Using Social Value to Catalyze Gender Equity and Climate Action When social value is put to use, it can yield tremendous impact. Social value helps to articulate the return on investment of supporting gender equity and climate action. An example is Drawdown, one of the most influential and comprehensive research studies on climate, which cited educating girls and family planning to be two of the ten most effective ways to reduce carbon emissions (Hawken 2017). The research is often cited, particularly from the investment community, as part of the reasoning to integrate a gender lens in climate action. In short, social value enables the creation of an evidence base to support the adoption of a gender lens in climate action.

4.3 Integrating Social Value and Gender Analysis Implementing social value to promote gender equity within climate action requires the integration of gender analysis into social value analysis. The two disciplines, social value and gender, have developed largely separately and this chapter seeks to

62

B. Chiu et al.

contribute to an integration of these two disciplines, to advance gender equity and equality. On the one hand, conventional environmental and social impact assessment processes largely ignore gender analysis. As the example of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline has demonstrated (Hill et  al. 2021), this means it may not identify all potential adverse impacts on women and other gender minorities, and it can fail to analyse the implications of potential impacts on gender norms and gender power relations, leading to a downplaying of the significance of these impacts. On the other hand, compared to social value analysis and social impact assessment, gender analysis is less often undertaken by programmes and initiatives. Mainstreaming gender into social value analysis, therefore, can increase its adoption.

4.3.1 Definitions of Social Value Analysis and Gender Analysis: The Principles of Social Value To understand how to mainstream gender into social value analysis, it is important to define ‘social value analysis’ in the first place. There are many different frameworks in social value, such as the Impact Management Project, but this chapter focuses on The Principles of Social Value (“the Principles”), created by the non-­ profit Social Value International (2021). The Principles provide the basic building blocks for implementing social value analysis in a rigorous manner. This model has been highlighted as particularly compatible with gender analysis, given two unique features. First, it focuses on what underpins social value, rather than only on how to measure it. Gender analysis, similarly, requires an understanding of the systemic drivers of gender inequity and inequality. Second, the Principles focus on the questions that need to be addressed so that the information can be used to inform decisions, rather than only on how to gather the information. Gender analysis, similarly, requires stakeholders to act on the information, particularly to advance gender equity and equality. Gender analysis, as defined in this chapter, is a broad umbrella term to describe analysis which studies and determines the different impacts of interventions on people of different genders (Stephens et al. 2018), relationships and roles between people of different genders (EIGE 2021) and systemic gender inequalities (Government of Canada 2021a). Given this definition, gender analysis requires a systemic and action-oriented approach, which the Principles also address. The first Principle of Social Value, “Involving stakeholders”, is particularly compatible with the thinking underpinning gender analysis. Social Value International encourages the identification of sub-groups based on materially different experiences. Similarly, within gender analysis, a key concept is intersectionality, which highlights how different social divisions (e.g. gender, race, socio-economic status) interrelate to produce social relations and personal life experience (Stephens et al. 2018). Intersectionality means that it is important to identify groups experiencing

4  Advancing Gender Equity and Equality in Climate: Analyzing the Gender and…

63

intersectional oppression or marginalisation, such as women with disabilities, who may be rendered invisible within a larger category of women. Another dimension advocated by the Principles of Social Value as well as gender analysis is the issue of power dynamics. Social Value International specifically mentions that people experiencing the impacts normally do not have the power to advocate for themselves, hence it is fundamental in social value analysis to address structural power imbalances. Similarly, gender analysis is acutely attentive to power dynamics, particularly gendered power dynamics (Stephens et al. 2018).

4.3.2 Integrating Social Value and Gender Analysis The table below (Table 4.2) outlines how social value and gender analysis can be integrated, and thus implemented to assessing programmes and initiatives.

4.3.3 Analyzing the Gender and Social Value of Climate Interventions This chapter is focused on applying the concepts of social value and gender analysis, in the context of climate interventions. The conceptual framework defined in Sect. 4.1 draws out the three main dimensions between gender and climate – causes, impacts and solutions of climate change, underpinned by the cross-cutting category of attitudes, narratives and norms. This section builds on the conceptual framework and provides examples of outcomes and indicators that can be used in gender-­ integrated social value analysis in climate interventions. Defining outcomes and indicators are crucial in order to determine what changes under the intervention and whether this change is desired (or not) and by whom, based on Principle 2 of the Principles of Social Value. There are two broad types of indicators: gender indicators and gender responsive indicators. According to the UNDP (Murray 2019), a ‘gender indicator’ seeks to ‘measure gender-related changes over time, that is the situation of men and women and the resulting gap between men and women’, whereas a ‘gender responsive indicator’ seeks to ‘reflect an understanding of gender roles and inequalities to encourage equal participation, including equal and fair distribution of benefits’. The latter takes a more action-oriented approach, in trying to achieve gender equity and equality through the act of measurement. Once data is collected in accordance with the outcomes and indicators, climate interventions can be analyzed based on the gender transformation continuum (Interagency Gender Working Group 2018; UNFPA 2021). These range from gender discriminatory, as worst practice, to gender transformative, as best practice (Fig. 4.1).

64

B. Chiu et al.

Table 4.2  Integration between social value and gender analyses The principles of social value 1. Involve stakeholders: Inform what gets measured and how it is measured and valued in relation to social value by actively involving stakeholders.

Gender analysis – what to ask Have people of different genders, including from marginalized communities, been consulted on the ‘problem’ the intervention is trying to solve? How have they been involved in development of the ‘solution’? Who is the target (both direct and indirect) of the proposed policy, program or project? Who will benefit? Who will lose? 2. Understand what Have people of different genders, changes: Articulate how including from marginalized change is created and communities, been asked about evaluate this through what outcomes have occurred for evidence, recognizing them or they want to see occur, positive and negative changes how they should be measured, as well as intended and how important they are and who unintended consequences. else contributes to them? Does the intervention challenge the existing gendered division of labor, opportunities, access, agency and norms?

3. Value the things that matter: Make decisions about allocating resources between different options by evaluating the stakeholder preferences and values.

What outcomes are most important to people of different genders, including from marginalized communities? How much more important is one outcome than another? How is the work done by people of different genders, including from marginalized communities, valued, and by whom?

4. Only include what is material: Determine what information and evidence must be included in the accounts to give a true and fair picture, such that stakeholders can draw reasonable conclusions about impact.

What is relevant and important to include in a decision to advance gender equity and gender equality? What outcomes are relevant and significant for reducing gender inequality?

Gender analysis – what to do Use participatory processes including a wide range from different genders, representing government, civil society and at the community level – including those experiencing the outcomes and impacts.

Consider the differential impact of the initiative on people of different genders, including from marginalized communities, and identify consequences to be addressed. Ensure that open questioning is used. Explore how one outcome leads to another, and which outcome is the one that presents the best opportunity to optimize wellbeing, gender equity and equality. Consider the value of work done by people of different genders. Include domestic (reproductive) and community work in the work profile. Recognize the ways people of different genders work and contribute to the economy, their family and society. Gain an understanding of the practical needs and strategic interests of women, including from marginalized communities, and identify opportunities to support both. Include outcomes that are relevant and significant in reducing gender inequality. (continued)

4  Advancing Gender Equity and Equality in Climate: Analyzing the Gender and…

65

Table 4.2 (continued) The principles of social value 5. Do not Overclaim: Only claim the value that activities are responsible for creating.

6. Be transparent: Demonstrate the basis on which the analysis may be considered accurate and honest, and show that it will be reported to and discussed with stakeholders.

7. Verify the result: Ensure appropriate independent assurance.

8. Be responsive: Pursue optimum social value based on decision making that is timely and supported by appropriate accounting and reporting.

Gender analysis – what to do Gain an understanding of gender relations, the gendered division of labor, and who has access to, and control over, resources and decision-making spaces. Collect benchmark data, a control group or a counterfactual dataset. How are people of different Establish baseline data, genders, including from ensure sex-disaggregated marginalized communities, being data, set measurable targets, kept informed about the and identify expected results intervention? Is information being and indicators. shared equitably to people of different genders? What decisions have been made and not made based on the data, particularly decisions relevant to reducing gender inequalities? Have people of different genders Qualified, locally based experiencing the impacts, gender equality experts are including from more marginalized involved in performance communities, been asked to verify measurement. the accounts? Have third parties Information on progress in verified the accounts? reducing gender inequalities is collected and analyzed as an integral part of performance measurement. Where do opportunities for change Outline the expected risks exist? And how can they best be (including backlash) and used? develop strategies to What specific ways can be minimize these risks. proposed for encouraging and Consider the different types enabling people of different of decisions that have been genders, including from made: Strategic, operational marginalized communities, to and tactical. participate in the intervention, despite any observed barriers in relation to agency, access, resources and norms? What is the long-term impact in regard to the increased ability among women and people of different genders, to take charge of their own lives, and to take collective action to solve problems? Gender analysis – what to ask What is the relationship between the intervention and other actions and organizations — national, regional or international? Who else contributes to this change? Would this change happen without our intervention?

Adapted from Government of Canada (2021b) and SVI (2021)

66

B. Chiu et al.

Fig. 4.1 Gender transformation continuum. (Interagency Gender Working Group 2018; UNFPA 2021)

4.3.4 Example Outcomes and Indicators This section sheds light on some specific outcomes and indicators that can be adopted. Given climate change is such a vast issue affecting many sectors, a helpful way of thinking about outcomes and indicators would be focusing on the specific sectors, as outlined in Table 4.3. As Table 4.3 shows, all of the indicators that measure the dimension of impact of climate change are categorized as gender responsive indicators, as the disproportionate impact of climate change on women and girls requires a commitment to ensure equal and fair distribution of benefits. Another way of deciding on outcomes and indicators is by utilizing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted by all UN Member States in 2015, as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which set out a 15-year plan to achieve these Goals. In 2019, the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres launched the ‘Decade of Action’ (2020–2030) to accelerate delivery of the SDGs, highlighting a greater focus on tackling growing poverty, empowering women and girls and addressing the climate emergency (United Nations Association 2019). The SDGs are the most common, standardized set of metrics adopted by impact investors – with 80% of investors adopting them (Bass et al. 2020). SDG metrics are intended for governments to report on sustainability progress, and a lot of them are monitoring these metrics rather than metrics for measuring social value. Nonetheless, they are helpful indicators in considering the high-level changes that are important to people and planet. When applying the SDGs to the gender-environment nexus, out of the 231 unique SDG indicators, 20 provide a gender dimension of environmental factors (OECD 2021), as summarized in Table 4.4 below. Yet, SDG 13, focused on climate action, only has one indicator providing a gender dimension, despite the documented evidence on the linkages between SDG 5 and SDG 13. Comparing Tables 4.3 and 4.4, the sectors of agriculture, energy, forestry, transport and water have also been covered largely by the gender-environment SDG indicators.

4  Advancing Gender Equity and Equality in Climate: Analyzing the Gender and…

67

Table 4.3  Example gender and gender responsive indicators by sector Dimension (see Table 4.1) Impact of climate change Solutions to climate change Impact of climate change

Sector Agriculture

Example indicator Changes in the income of farmers from production of food, disaggregated by gender (Ahonen 2010)

Energy

Increase in awareness of energy efficient stoves among rural households in a certain district or region, disaggregated by gender (Murray 2019) Changes in the labor burden among people of different genders (e.g. number of persons reporting a significant reduction in the time spent for collecting fuel) (Murray 2019); or number of persons reporting a loss of time to pursue education or income generation activities (Ahonen 2010) Health and safety benefits from cleaner indoor air Impact of and reduced firewood collection (Ahonen 2010) climate change Increase in proportion of women and men and other Solutions to gender minorities who perceive that the issuing of climate certificates to allow reforestation in designated sites change is effective (Murray 2019) Changes in the labor burden among people of Impact of different genders (e.g. number of persons reporting climate an increase in responsibilities to meet household change food and fuel needs) (Ahonen 2010) The perception of both women and men and other Causes of gender minorities on the use of public transport in climate municipalities (Murray 2019) change Solutions to climate change The extent to which senior officials take Impact of responsibility for monitoring gender access to water climate in drought prone and climate change risk areas change (Murray 2019) Share of managerial jobs in ‘green sectors’ held by Solutions to women and other gender minorities (UN Women climate 2021) change

Energy

Energy

Forestry

Forestry

Transport

Water

Across ‘green sectors’

Type Gender responsive indicator Gender indicator Gender responsive indicator

Gender responsive indicator Gender indicator

Gender responsive indicator Gender indicator

Gender responsive indicator Gender indicator

Such indicators expressed in the SDG are already used by organizations to monitor and evaluate the progress of climate interventions. For instance, the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF), an independent philanthropic organization focused on children and climate, has a team of Evidence, Measurement, and Evaluation (EME) specialists who provide internal expertise and oversee a portfolio of third-party evaluations to evaluate the impact of their investments, both for learning and accountability, including towards the individuals and communities they serve. As part of their investment portfolio, including strategies relating to land use,

68

B. Chiu et al.

Table 4.4  List of SDG indicators providing gender dimension of environmental factors SDG 1. No poverty

SDG indicator 1.4.2 Proportion of total adult population with secure tenure rights to land, (a) with legally recognized documentation, and (b) who perceive their rights to land as secure, by sex and type of tenurea 1.4.3 Number of deaths, missing persons and directly affected persons attributed to disasters per 100,000 population 2. Zero hunger 2.3.2 Average income of small-scale food producers, by sex and indigenous statusa 3. Good health and 3.9.1 Mortality rate attributed to household and ambient air pollution wellbeing 3.9.2 Mortality rate attributed to unsafe water, unsafe sanitation and lack of hygiene (exposure to unsafe water, sanitation and hygiene for all (WASH) services)a 3.9.3 Mortality rate attributed to unintentional poisoning 5. Gender equality 5.a.1 (a) Proportion of total agricultural population with ownership or secure rights over agricultural land, by sex; and (b) share of women among owners or rights-bearers of agricultural land, by type of tenurea 5.a.2 Proportion of countries where the legal framework (including customary law) guarantees women’s equal rights to land ownership and/ or controla 6. Clean water and 6.1.1 Proportion of population using safely managed drinking water sanitation services 6.2.1 Proportion of population using (a) safely managed sanitation services and (b) a hand-washing facility with soap and watera 7. Affordable and 7.1.1 Proportion of population with access to electricitya clean energy 7.1.2 Proportion of population with primary reliance on clean fuels and technologya 8. Decent work and 8.3.1 Proportion of informal employment in total employment, by sector economic growth and sex 9. Industry, 9.1.1 Proportion of the rural population who live within 2 km of an innovation and all-season road infrastructure 9.5.2 Researchers (in full-time equivalent) per million inhabitants 9.c.1 Proportion of population covered by a mobile network, by technology 11. Sustainable cities 11.1.1 Proportion of urban population living in slums, informal and communities settlements or inadequate housing 11.2.1 Proportion of population that has convenient access to public transport, by sex, age and persons with disabilities 11.5.1 Number of deaths, missing persons and directly affected persons attributed to disasters per 100,000 population (also 13.1.1.) 11.7.1 Average share of the built-up area of cities that is open space for public use for all, by sex, age and persons with disabilities 11.7.2 Proportion of persons victim of physical or sexual harassment, by sex, age, disability status and place of occurrence, in the previous 12 months Denotes indicators that are being considered or have already been integrated in CIFF’s portfolio

a

4  Advancing Gender Equity and Equality in Climate: Analyzing the Gender and…

69

food systems, nutrition and Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH), they have included SDG indicators as part of their robust monitoring systems to support programme investments and generate data that can be used for decision making, and programme improvement where necessary.

4.4 Examples Which Analyze the Gender and Social Value of Climate Interventions to Advance Gender Equity Analyzing gender and social value in climate interventions can be used in many instances, and this section will provide an overview of this approach being applied in (a) programme design and strategy development by philanthropic foundations and nonprofits; (b) project evaluation by implementing organizations; and, (c) policy development on a national and international level. The concepts covered in the previous sections, including the dimensions of gender-climate interlinkages (causes, impact and solutions), the Principles of Social Value and gender analysis and the gender transformation continuum, as well as concrete outcomes and indicators, will be applied. These are not exhaustive examples, but cases to illustrate the concepts covered above.

4.4.1 Used in Programme Design/Strategy Development CIFF is one organization that is using gender and social value analysis in its programme and strategy design. For example, CIFF has recently revised its Food and Land Use strategy, which cuts across both its climate and nutrition portfolios. The cross-cutting goal of the strategy is to achieve a 1.5° food system that can feed 10 billion people by 2050. Given where we are – the current food system is the source of roughly a third of all greenhouse gas emissions, and leaves almost 800 million people hungry – progress towards this goal requires a holistic approach that tackles both the drivers of land use emissions as well as the inequalities of our current food system. This means grant making targeting the determinants of vulnerability of which gender and social access are key, including: • Increasing production and access to quality nutritious food for the most vulnerable. • Provision of curative and preventive services for malnutrition to specific populations in countries most affected by severe acute malnutrition. • Enhancing resilient livelihoods and creation of jobs in the rural economy. • Increasing agricultural productivity through investing in sustainable, climate-­ resilient land use practices, including natural farming/regenerative agriculture practices, diversification of farming and low carbon agricultural technologies. Integration of the above drivers is a crucial component of the wider theory of change needed to transform land use and reform food systems – for CIFF, this means that

70

B. Chiu et al.

subsequent investments will seek integrated wins across climate, health, social development, and biodiversity, whilst measuring the impact of its investments on equity and a just transition to a low carbon economy.

4.4.2 Used in Project Evaluation As noted in previous sections, gender analysis is often not applied in social impact assessments or evaluation of climate interventions. In 2019, the non-profit organization Oxfam commissioned a gender analysis of the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment of the East Africa Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) (Oxfam 2019). The approach taken was to apply gender analysis to the Environmental and Social Impact Assessments of EACOP that have already been conducted, in both Uganda and Tanzania. The gender analysis focused on the land, livelihood, food security, and health and safety of the women affected by the establishment of the pipeline; and analyses the potential implications this has on women’s unpaid care work and gender power relations. These indicators were chosen as these are sectors where extractive industry projects are most likely to have gender impact. The study about EACOP found that female-headed households were particularly vulnerable to being economically displaced and to experiencing food insecurity, and this was exacerbated by gendered policies that excluded women from owning, inheriting, and controlling land. Negative impacts for women linked to land acquisition and project employment were identified, including workload implications, girls’ education and unequal power relations in the household. This study focuses on the causes and impact of climate, but not on solutions as the project being studied was designed without gender in mind. Even though the gender transformation continuum was not used by the authors of the Oxfam report, it appears that EACOP was gender discriminatory. More generally, the study found the inadequacy of Environmental and Social Impact Assessments to fully identify the gender impacts of oil and gas projects, and therefore recommends for gender analysis to be performed in conjunction with or integrated within Environmental and Social Impact Assessments moving forward. This argument is further strengthened by Hill et  al. (2021), stating that gender impact assessment should ideally be standalone, or take a gender-responsive approach, compatible with human rights.

4.4.3 Used at a Country Level in Policy Design A few countries are integrating gender in their NDCs submitted to UNFCCC, particularly Canada, Nigeria and Vanuatu (Allinson 2021). In Canada’s Intended NDCs, it has a dedicated section on transparency and ongoing evaluation to enable its increasing gender equality ambition. This includes the adoption of a Quality of Life Framework, which includes its commitment to challenge societal norms, by

4  Advancing Gender Equity and Equality in Climate: Analyzing the Gender and…

71

adopting indicators such as ‘positive perceptions of diversity’ (Government of Canada 2019a). Furthermore, the Canadian government measures impact, according to the country’s government-wide Gender Results Framework, which tracks performance against key gender equality indicators (Allinson 2021). This includes a few indicators relating to climate, such as “Proportion of individuals living in households that are moderately or severely food-insecure, by economic family type” (Government of Canada 2019b). Moreover, under the 2018 Gender Budgeting Act, the Ministry of Finance and Treasury is required to publicize the gender and diversity impacts of all new budgeted measures (Allinson 2021), and given the increased government spending on climate (Government of Canada 2022), this is highly relevant for advancing gender equity in climate action. In 2021, Canada’s budget aimed to disproportionately benefit women in 34% of its investments, to help meet its gender equality goals (Allinson 2021). According to Rubin and Bartle (2021) more than 80 countries have applied a gender perspective to their budget process – integrating gender into different budget formats, and infusing gender into all phases of the budget cycle from formulation to evaluation, in order to achieve gender equality and equity. As for Vanuatu, it has included process and outcome-based gender indicators for adaptation targets in the agriculture sector (Allinson 2021) including: the proportion of men and women operating, and turnover generated by, agriculture small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in normal and (climate, disaster and environmentally) stressed times; the proportion of men and women with adequate access to water in normal and (climate, disaster and environmentally) stressed times; and the number of decisions made by women. As for Nigeria, a gender analysis was carried out as part of the NDC update process, which “found a general lack of access to and control of resources by women compared to men in all seven priority sectors” (Allinson 2021, p. 27). This has led to Nigeria revising its NDC to include specific capacity-development requirements for women, especially in water and sanitation, energy and transportation and food security and health. The three governments have used gender and social value analyses in different ways. Canada has used it to monitor and measure the impact of climate change on women and girls, as well as to monitor budget spend in order to advance gender equity. Vanuatu has used gender analysis to mitigate the impact of climate change and monitor the extent to which women are included in the solutions to climate change. Nigeria has implemented gender analysis in order to identify priority areas for its policies, and is also in the process of designing indicators to monitor their progress. Across these three governments, there appears to be a commitment to be gender responsive and even transformative, based on the gender transformation continuum. What remains to be seen, however, is whether these commitments translate to actual changes in the status of women and other gender minorities. Apart from policy development on a national level, various multilateral agencies, notably the World Bank (World Bank 2011), integrate gender in climate policy design and reform. More broadly, evidence-based policy-making is increasingly applied to addressing SDG 5, gender equality (Eden and Wagstaff 2021).

72

B. Chiu et al.

4.5 How to Further Gender and Social Value This chapter aimed to (1) provide the conceptual framework to consider gender-­ climate interlinkages, with the view of advancing gender equity and equality; (2) demonstrate the importance of social value in promoting gender equity within climate; (3) provide practical definitions and frameworks to integrate gender and social value analysis, including concrete indicators used in the context of climate interventions; and (4) provide examples of how to analyze gender and social value of climate interventions by non-profit organizations, foundations, governments and multilateral institutions. This final section concludes with some recommendations on how to further the application of gender and social value analyses in climate interventions. It is clear that applying gender and social value analyses in climate interventions is not widely adopted as a practice. This chapter aims to contribute to this by providing the case for such applications, as well as conceptual frameworks and practical examples. Further recommendations relating to data collection and evaluation practices of programmes include: at the very minimum, that gender-disaggregated data are collected deliberately from the start. This also corresponds to programmes and activities being categorized as “gender sensitive” in the gender transformation continuum. Beyond the collection of gender-disaggregated data, it is important to gather insights on the wider social value of programmes beyond immediate outcomes targeted. A UN Women publication (Stephens et al. 2018, p.32) substantiates why this is important: “Gender-responsive analysis or evaluation may be limited if it does not attempt to address the root causes of inequalities in people’s lives.” Evaluative practices should aim to be gender transformative, taking the aim of evaluation further by actively contributing to gender equity, especially changes in norms and structures. Apart from data collection and evaluation practices, there also needs to be a wider shift. As the nexus between gender and climate becomes increasingly well-­ known, and the social impact of climate change becomes increasingly considered, there is an opportunity to bring gender and social value together within climate, rather than continuing with a siloed approach. Gender analysis is also evolving, going beyond the binary (women versus men) approach, towards understanding the deeply structured gender norms and dynamics, and impact on other gender minorities. It is not exactly clear why there has not been more adoption of gender and social value analyses, and this chapter has made certain assumptions, including the lack of awareness of this approach and the lack of practical frameworks to implement this. But there may be other barriers, such as the lack of funding and resources to implement this, the perceived lack of value (‘return on investment’) from such analyses, or the challenges from getting such data. These barriers need to be investigated further in future research, and more financial resources will need to be made available for such research and its applications, including how such analyses can create positive outcomes, in this emerging field.

4  Advancing Gender Equity and Equality in Climate: Analyzing the Gender and…

73

References Ahonen HM (2010) Gender and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, Oslo Allinson C (2021) Gender Integration for Climate Action: A Review of Commonwealth Member Country Nationally Determined Contributions. The Commonwealth Secretariat, London Azcona G, Bhatt A, Brauchle J et al (2021) Progress on the sustainable development goals: the gender snapshot 2021. UN Women and UN DESA Statistics Division. https://tinyurl.com/uemsp62a. Accessed 25 Aug 2022 Bass R, Dithrich H, Sunderji S et al (2020) The state of impact management and measurement practice, 2nd edn. [GIIN] Global Impact Investing Network, New York Biegel S, Lambin S (2021) Gender & climate investment: a strategy for unlocking a sustainable future. GenderSmart and partners, London Bretherton C (2003) Movements, networks, hierarchies: a gender perspective on global environemntal governance. Global Environmental Politics 3 2. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts Eden L, Wagstaff MF (2021) Evidence-based policymaking and the wicked problem of SDG 5 gender equality. J Int Bus Stud 4:28–57. https://doi.org/10.1057/s42214-­020-­00054-­w Environmental Finance (2021) Green bond funds: impact reporting practices 2021. Environmental Finance, New York European Institute for Gender Equality [EIGE] (2021) Gender analysis. https://eige.europa.eu/ gender-­mainstreaming/methods-­tools/gender-­analysis. Accessed 25 Aug 2022 Gay-Antaki M, Liverman D (2018) Climate for women in climate science: women scientists and the intergovernmental panel on climate change. PNAS 115(9):2060–2065. https://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.1710271115 Government of Canada (2019a) Measuring what matters: toward a quality of life strategy for Canada. Department of Finance Canada, Ottawa Government of Canada (2019b) Poverty reduction, health and well-being. https://women-­gender-­ equality.canada.ca/en/gender-­results-­framework/poverty-­reduction-­health-­well-­being.html. Accessed 25 Aug 2022 Government of Canada (2021a) Gender-based Analysis Plus (GBA+). https://women-­gender-­ equality.canada.ca/en/gender-­based-­analysis-­plus.html. Accessed 25 Aug 2022 Government of Canada (2021b) Policy on gender equality. https://www.international.gc.ca/world-­ monde/funding-­financement/policy-­politique.aspx?lang=eng#a5. Accessed 25 Aug 2022 Government of Canada (2022) Chapter 3: climate and energy. https://budget.gc.ca/2022/report-­ rapport/chap3-­en.html. Accessed 25 Aug 2022 Hawken P (ed) (2017) Drawdown: the most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse global warming. Penguin, Chicago Hill C, Namara C, Orcaya J et al (2021) Hidden in plain sight: gender analysis of the environmental and social impact assessment of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 39(3):229–239 Interagency Gender Working Group (2018) Exploring gender transformative approaches: lessons learned and new opportunities in health programming. USAID, Washington Kariuku J, Birner R (2016) Are market-based conservation schemes gender-blind? A qualitative study of three cases from Kenya. Soc Nat Resour 29(4):432–447. https://doi.org/10.108 0/08941920.2015.1086461 Murray U (2019) Gender responsive indicators: gender and NDC planning for implementation. [UNDP] United Nations Development Programme, New York Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2021) Gender and the environment: building evidence and policies to achieve the SDGs. OECD Publishing, Paris Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2022) Gender and the environment: building the evidence base and advancing policy actions to achieve the SDGs. OECD Publishing, Paris

74

B. Chiu et al.

Oxfam (2019) Gender analysis of East Africa crude oil pipeline: environmental and social impact assessment. Oxfam, Kampala Porter C (2021) Education is under threat from climate change – especially for women and girls. University of Oxford News. https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/features/education-­under-­threat-­ climate-­change-­especially-­women-­and-­girls. Accessed 25 Aug 2022 Rubin MM, Bartle JR (2021) Gender-responsive budgeting: a budget reform to address gender inequity. Public Adm:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12802 Social Value International [SVI] (2021) The principles of social value. https://static1.squarespace. com/static/60dc51e3c58aef413ae5c975/t/6127b55936e97e03e86297ea/1629992289441/ Principles+of+Social+Value+.pdf. Accessed 24 Aug 2022 Social Value International [SVI] (2022) What is social value. https://www.socialvalueint.org/what-­ is-­social-­value. Accessed 25 Aug 2022 Stephens A, Lewis EA, Reddy S (2018) Inclusive systemic evaluation for gender equality, environments and marginalized voices (ISE4GEMs): a new approach for the SDG era. UN Women, New York Tabary Z (2018) Climate change a ‘man-made problem with a feminist solution’ says Robinson. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-­global-­climatechange-­women-­ idUSKBN1JE2IN. Accessed 25 Aug 2022 The Global Innovation Lab for Climate Finance (2022) Projects archive. https://www.climatefinancelab.org/project/?_sfm_status=Endorsed-­% 2C-­F ire%20Winner-­% 2C-­I n%20 Development. Accessed 25 Aug 2022 Tilt B, Braun Y, He D (2009) Social impacts of large dam projects: a comparison of international case studies and implications for best practice. J Environ Manage 90(3):S249–S257 United Nations Association (2019) The decade of action. Retrieved from https://www.sustainablegoals.org.uk/the-­decade-­of-­action/. Accessed 25 Aug 2022 United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP] (2018) Women leaders come together to fight climate change. https://www.unep.org/news-­and-­stories/story/women-­leaders-­come-­together-­ fight-­climate-­change. Accessed 25 Aug 2022 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC] (2020) Gender & climate change: an important connection. https://unfccc.int/gender. Accessed 25 Aug 2022 United Nations Population Fund [UNFPA] (2021) Joint evaluation of the UNFPA-UNICEF joint programme on the elimination of female genital mutilation: accelerating change. UNFPA and [UNICEF] United Nations Children’s Fund, New York United Nations Women [UN Women] (2020) Facts and figures: women’s leadership and political participation. https://www.unwomen.org/en/what-­we-­do/leadership-­and-­political-­ participation/facts-­and-­figures#_edn4. Accessed 25 Aug 2022 United Nations Women [UN Women] (2021) Final indicator list for monitoring of the action coalition global targets. https://data.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2022-­03/Consolidated-­ Indicators_ACs.pdf. Accessed 25 Aug 2022 Women Deliver (2018) Balancing the power equation: women’s leadership in politics, business and communities. http://womendeliver.org/wp-­content/uploads/2018/09/Women-­Leadership-­ Policy-­Brief-­9.23.18.pdf. Accessed 25 Aug 2022 Women’s Environmental Network (2016) Why women and climate change. https://www.wen. org.uk/wp-­content/uploads/Why-­women-­and-­climate-­change-­briefing-­2.pdf. Accessed 25 Aug 2022 World Bank (2011) Gender and climate: three things you should know. The World Bank Group, Washington

Chapter 5

Social Value During a Pandemic: Insights from Brazil Marcos Kisil

5.1 Introduction The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is undeniably the most serious health crisis the world has known since the Great Influenza of 1918. The Brazilian government, as did governments across the world, had to respond quickly and efficiently to the crisis to minimize the negative and profound consequences affecting Brazilian society. Governments had to develop and implement exceedingly difficult public measures to stop the spread of the virus: public lockdowns, the use of masks, and the acquisition, and distribution of vaccines. Governments also had to manage the economic side of the crisis – the closing of businesses, industrial facilities and supply lines – leading to unemployment and supply shortages, which had major impacts on the most vulnerable peoples in society. In the case of Brazil, the pandemic brought a series of poor decisions by federal authorities that spread the virus, leading to increased need of assistance to patients, and higher mortality rates. The government’s actions reflected their perspectives on social value – or benefiting people’s lives and wellbeing in positive and measured ways, during the pandemic – with little data gathered around issues that mattered to people, which would bring sharper insight around the governments performance during the pandemic. This chapter reviews the roles of the Brazilian government and Brazilian society during the pandemic. This review is supported by available evidence gained from the fields of epidemiology, social science, social psychology, and public administration. The ambition is to illustrate how social value is given expression during a pandemic, and some of the challenges and opportunities for tracking and measuring social value in this context. M. Kisil (*) School of Public Health, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 W. Nikolakis, R. Moura da Veiga (eds.), Social Value, Climate Change and Environmental Stewardship: Insights from Theory and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23145-2_5

75

76

M. Kisil

5.2 COVID-19: The Pandemic in Brazil COVID-19 is the name defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) for the disease caused by the new Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. The features of this virus, such as the incubation period and the contagion capacity, caused a quick spread of the disease (WHO 2020). The fast-paced transmission across continents led WHO to declare SARS-CoV-2 as a Pandemic on March 11, 2020 (WHO 2020). Brazil reported its first case at the end of February 2020 (Croda and Garcia 2020). Like other countries, the diffusion of the new coronavirus significantly impacted human relations, generating broad repercussions in families and communities. The spread of the virus brought forward systematic changes in people’s daily behaviors, their daily personal and work routines, and consequently those of organizations and the nation. The pandemic demanded a global-wide campaign to slow the spread of the new coronavirus, including mask-wearing, hand washing, avoiding face touching, and maintaining social distance new vaccines and drugs were developed to combat the disease. According to Moon (2020), Christensen and Lægreid (2020) and Dai et  al. (2020), transparent policy and communication of risks associated with the disease, voluntary cooperation by citizens, detailed information on Covid-19, and pragmatic decision making, are critical factors to fight the pandemic. What we do know is that the COVID-19 pandemic destabilized Brazil, in a multi-dimensional way, altering social relations, consumption and people’s wellbeing. For the most vulnerable, social isolation during the pandemic was a luxury they did not have. It was difficult to be at home to avoid contagion when there was no money to be able to afford a house or a meal. It was difficult to confine in social isolation when big families live in small rooms in shanty towns. It is difficult to wash hands several times a day in these places, when there is no piped water and proper sanitary conditions at home. And when people were infected by the virus, they did not have access to adequate health services treatment to attend their needs. The economic, social, and cultural consequences of this pandemic were far-­ reaching in Brazil. Up to now, the COVID-19 crisis has not only resulted in the loss of over 600 and 80,000 lives, but it also exacerbates inequality, making it more visible by increased unemployment, worsen access to the national health systems, poor housing and sanitation that aggravated social instability. After a long and necessary six months of work, a Senate Parliamentary Inquiry Committee (CPI) declared the Federal government as responsible for the poor COVID-19 outcomes (Government of Brazil 2021). This declaration had shared consensus among public policy analysts, academics, political opposition leaders, influential media, and the public. Polls by research institutes demonstrated the loss of credibility and culpability of the federal government because of its handling of COVID-19, especially in the President of the Republic.

5  Social Value During a Pandemic: Insights from Brazil

77

5.3 Brazilian Inequality: Compounded Impacts from COVID-19 and Policy Interventions 5.3.1 COVID-19 and Inequality Brazilian society suffers from structural inequality in several dimensions, and this inequality epidemic in Brazil has long preceded the Covid-19 pandemic (Oxfam International 2021). In 2018, Brazil was the eighth most unequal country on the planet and income inequality had reached the highest level since 2012, as the income of the richest 10% being 13 times higher than the average of the poorest 40%. People of color, the basis of the Brazilian social pyramid, continues to be the most affected by inequality (IBGE 2019). Poverty in Brazil affects people of color most, composing 72.7% of low-income people, of which over half are women (Monteiro et al. 2020). These people live in crowded slums areas had limited possibilities to follow hygiene- and social distancing protocols, making a highly contagious disease difficult to contain. In addition, 6.9% of the Brazilian population is illiterate, 30% of the Brazilians between the age of 15–64 years old are functionally illiterate people, 26.9% have less than 11 years of formal education, and only 16.5% have completed an undergraduate education, which means that a large part of the population is unable to interpret information related to COVID-19, especially when conflicting messages are disseminated (IBGE 2019). In the political system, those without wealth have little power to shape the policy priorities  – or their conceptions of social value. During the pandemic, inequality aggravated the impact of COVID-19 and the policy measures: a loss of employment and income (which deepened inequality), and, due to living conditions, pre-existing comorbidities and poor access to health, a disproportionate death toll within more vulnerable communities. From April 2020 to April 2021, some 377 Brazilians lost their jobs per hour; during the worst moment of the crisis, almost 1400 Brazilians lost their job per hour, and as a result Brazil registered a record of 14.4 million unemployed in April 2021. Almost 600,000 companies went bankrupt, hindering employment recovery in the country. The designed programs to secure employment were unsuccessful in promoting the betterment of precarious working conditions for young people and vulnerable groups, such as women. Hunger skyrocketed during the pandemic. In December 2020, 55% of the Brazilian population was in a situation of food insecurity (116.8 million, equivalent to the joint population of Germany and Canada) and 9% were hungry (19.1 million, higher to the population of the Netherlands). This represents a setback to 2004 conditions. The hunger issue affects women and people of color the hardest in Brazil – 11.1% of households headed by women and 10.7% of households headed by people of color were starving at the end of 2020, compared to 7.7% of households headed by men and 7.5% of households headed by white people.

78

M. Kisil

The Federal government adopted emergency measures to mitigate the financial impacts of the pandemic for country’s poorest families. It resulted from the mobilization of civil society and the Brazilian National Congress and benefits reached 67 million Brazilians (31% of the population) with public investment of USD $58.4 billion, which corresponds to 4% of the Brazilian GDP.  However, by November 2021, the government decided to phase out the Bolsa Família, an internationally recognized cash-transfer program, created in 2003, to replace by a new program called Auxílio Brasil. The transition was very problematic because it dismantled a successful policy against poverty at a time when it is most needed. This led to unemployment and poverty, which increased suffering during the pandemic. After over 680,000 deaths, the unequal access to health services left scars on the most vulnerable in Brazil. Inequality as a factor for the advancement of the coronavirus in Brazil’s social peripheries, increasing the risk of death from the coronavirus by up to 50% among these peoples. Even with a vaccination program in Brazil in a universal health care system (SUS), most COVID-19 deaths were concentrated in the peripheries of big cities because of unequal access to vaccines, among others (Shadmi et al. 2020). Unfortunately, the same government that created the Emergency Aid program in 2020 decided to make several budget cuts affecting key areas to address the COVID-19 pandemic as science and technology, education, and health, including the budget for COVID-19 vaccines. Nassif et al. (2021) built an index to measure individuals’ social vulnerability to the virus in Brazil, using the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), National Household Sample Survey. The study concluded that: • there was an unequal health burden of COVID-19 on women of color; • low-income and racialized populations are at increased risk of being infected and dying from COVID-19; • with respect to household income, the average vulnerability index falls steadily with income, and that people of color and Indigenous populations are at higher risk than white populations in every income percentile; • the average Brazilian in the bottom 60% of the income distribution presents a risk above the national average, and race seems to be a determining factor in social vulnerability. The World Bank’s Gini coefficient measuring inequality reached its highest number on record, 0.674, in the first quarter of 2021 (Tornaghi 2021). The wealthiest continue to benefit the most: while earnings for the poorest 40% shrunk by a third in 2020, the top 10% of earners lost just 3% of their income. Another critical point regarding inequality in Brazil relates to the public universal health system, or SUS, which provides healthcare to approximately 80% of the population. The remaining 20% rely on private health insurance. Several studies show different rates in the presence of comorbidities and the relationship to race and income gap, and in turn these explain a higher prevalence of COVID-19 and death prevalence’s to explain the racial and income gaps in COVID19’s observed cases and death toll (Kim and Bostwick 2020; Margolis et al. 1992; Nassif et al. 2021;

5  Social Value During a Pandemic: Insights from Brazil

79

Preston and Taubman 1994; Price-Haywood et  al. 2020; Viacava et  al. 2019). Comorbidities include diabetes, hypertension, asthma, lung disease, coronary disease, or chronic kidney disease. Brazilians without formal education had higher levels of comorbidities that increase the risk of COVID-19 complications and death (Beltrán-Sánchez and Andrade 2016).

5.3.2 Addressing Inequality Post-COVID-19 In an Oxfam International (2021) study, projections on the recovery of Brazilians to the COVID-19 crises were made, given the present inequalities: • It will take the country 75  years to reach United Kingdom’s current level of income equality and almost 60 years to meet Spanish standards. Compared to its neighbors, Brazil is 35 years behind Uruguay and 30 behind Argentina; • In Brazil, someone earning the minimum monthly wage would have to work 19 years to make the same money a Brazilian from the richest 0.1% of the population makes in one month; and • Brazil is decades away from wage equality. At the current pace of progress, Brazilian women will close the wage gap in 2047. People of color in Brazil will earn the same as whites in 2089. To the above evidence, one can add: • Brazil’s six richest men have the same wealth as the poorest 50% of the population (around 100 million people). The country’s richest 5% have the same income as the remaining 95%; • If six richest Brazilian men pooled their wealth and spent one million Brazilian reals a day (around $319,000), it would take them 36  years to spend all their money. Meanwhile, 16 million Brazilians live below the poverty line; and • The percentage of young Brazilians neither working nor studying jumped from 20% at the start of the decade to 29% during the pandemic. Experts say that this pandemic generation, deprived of the benefits of education and employment, will bring down productivity and impact the economy into the future. One of the main reasons is that the world is advancing very rapidly in the field of innovative technologies, opening an unimaginable set of political and social transformations, with economic activity requiring increasingly scientific and technological knowledge. A natural consequence of this situation is that Brazil’s youth will experience underdevelopment in a world where education, science, innovation and access to technology are critical. Brazil’s share of the global economy has fallen from 4.3% in 1980 to only to 2.4% in 2021(Tornaghi 2021). If the country continues to sabotage the future of its own people, this downward trend is sure to continue. It is good to remember the renowned excerpt from Swiss philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau

80

M. Kisil

(1792–1778) that “…nature makes men equal, but society makes them unequal”. Rousseau adds on his Discourse on Inequality: I conceive that there are two kinds of inequality among the human species; one, which I call natural or physical, because it is established by nature, and consists in a difference of age, health, bodily strength, and the qualities of the mind or of the soul: and another, which may be called moral or political inequality, because it depends on a kind of convention, and is established, or at least authorised by the consent of men.

In Brazil, moral or political inequality prevails – conceptions of social value, according to the most vulnerable, are ignored. Public authorities are resistant to social change and see inequality as a natural fact – not something to be addressed, let alone prioritized, measured and evaluated. Deficient performance of all branches of government, and corruption in a higher scale hide the opportunities to more equity in society and fosters mistrust in government and an overall lack of legitimacy, compounded by the COVID-19 crisis.

5.4 Brazilian Government During the Pandemic A failure to account for social value shaped and influenced the Brazilian governments poor response to COVID-19, not only ignoring inequality and vulnerability, but worsening this for years to come. After six months of work, a senate inquiry (CPI) produced and presented to the Brazilian public a final report on the government’s response to COVID-19 (Government of Brazil 2021). The 1180-page document identified more than 60 people as responsible for mismanagement and crimes during the epidemics. These crimes included crimes against humanity, bid fraud, corruption, incitement to crime, malfeasance, irregular use of public funds and forgery of public documents. The text portrays the performance of the Jair Bolsonaro government during the pandemic as negligent, incompetent, unscientific, corrupt, macabre, chaotic, criminal and decisive for Brazil to produce the health disaster that has officially claimed more than 600,000 lives. According to the report, the Bolsonaro government “has agreed to the death of Brazilians”. The portrait describes the Bolsanaro government’s performance during the pandemic as negligent, incompetent, unscientific, corrupt, macabre, chaotic, criminal, and decisive for Brazil to produce the sanitary disaster that affected Brazilian people (Fernandes 2021; Government of Brazil 2021). The text describes how the government’s denial of the crisis included the formation of networks that promoted fake news, anti-vaccination paranoia and encouragement to disrespect the norms of distancing. It also described how federal authorities chose to “deliberately expose the population to a concrete risk of mass infection (Government of Brazil 2021, p 50–57) by refusing to adopt distancing measures and masks and embracing the promotion of an ineffective and potentially dangerous “initial treatment” with ineffective medicines as hydroxychloroquine (Government of Brazil 2021, p 58–63). The report concluded that “the President was interested in encouraging Brazilians to

5  Social Value During a Pandemic: Insights from Brazil

81

expose themselves to contagion without protection, so that they could be infected by the virus without major difficulties or barriers”, says the text. All to seek “herd immunity” from natural contamination, even in the face of scientific evidence that thousands of Brazilians would die in this process. Another accusation was the appointment of military personnel, without health training and experience, to posts in the Ministry of Health, and the creation of a “parallel cabinet” to direct government decisions and medical doctors involved in the unethical use of ineffective drugs against COVID-19. In early 2021, it became evident that the government did not have enough vaccines after ignoring repeated offers from Pfizer/BioNTech that could have resulted in the country starting vaccination weeks earlier. In addition, the government even boycotted Coronavac, a Chinese vaccine produced with the support of the governor of São Paulo (Government of Brazil 2021, p 204–259). While ignoring offers from large laboratories, the Ministry of Health opened the doors to shell companies that made unrealistic offers of immunization agents. The accusations involve companies, which even without vaccines, started negotiations for the sale of tens of millions of immunization agents. According to a deponent, a member of the ministry demanded a bribe to ‘close the deal’.

5.5 Political Leadership Values and the Interaction with Social Value The role of the Brazilian government in creating, reinforcing, and spreading a political culture that advances its own interests cannot be ignored (Faoro 2001). Political leadership in Brazil sustains a ‘patronage culture’ that guides the political system, for the benefit of individuals rather than collective interests. The development of political ideas and practices fostered by public authorities treat the relationship between citizens and the political elite as ‘clientelism’. Rooted in the political traditions of Brazilian society, clientelist political culture is resilient even to the innovations of democratic regimes that propose a more inclusive civil society. Based on Faoro’s analysis of the “patrimonial state” political culture, there is a persistent pattern of support by the political leaders to keep and enforce the monopoly of the state for social protection, which is even stronger in a context of high social inequality. There is an enduring political culture in Brazil that strengthens the subjugation of vulnerable peoples, especially the most vulnerable groups, in relation to the state. Since his election into office in 2018, President Bolsonaro shows an authoritarian leadership style in emphasizing traditional family values and Judeo-Christian morals (MacDonald 2020; Thomas 2019). Levitsky and Ziblatt in writing about the rise of authoritarian leaders around the world (Levitsky and Ziblatt 2018) described the main indicators of the behavior of those leaders. All the main indicators of the behavior of an authoritarian listed by the authors are present in the figure of Jair Bolsonaro. They cite four aspects that an authoritarian leader brings: the rejection of the democratic rules; the denial of the

82

M. Kisil

legitimacy of political opponents; tolerance or encouragement of violence; and the propensity to restrict the civil liberties of opponents, including the media. Such indicators were easily perceptible in the speeches and political positions of the then federal deputy and candidate for the presidency of the Republic in the 2018 elections. His behavior becoming president was not a surprise. Bolsanaro was an Army paratrooper from 1977 to 1988 without rising beyond the rank of captain. In 1985 he was court-martialed because he planned to disrupt the water supply in Rio de Janeiro with explosives. The Army expelled him. Elected to the Congress in 1991, he became a lonely voice of nostalgia for the military dictatorship regime that ended in 1985. As a presidential candidate he conducted a brutal campaign to incite social and political hatred and intolerance. He based his entire campaign strategy on the distribution of fake news distributed by a complex and advanced system of propagation of lies via the Internet financed by illegal procedures. The supporters from the political, judicial, media, industrial, rural, and financial elite made the historic mistake of believing that after election it would be possible to put a brake on his behavior to govern in a balanced way for the whole Brazilian society. They made a big mistake. He became a president without moderation and without limits that attacks freedom, the separation of powers, human rights, the environment, and the most basic values of modern bourgeois liberal democracy as the Congress, the Supreme Court, state governors and political parties (Hunter and Power 2019). Bolsonaro’s unwavering principles that economic growth and prosperity trump other policy priorities, such as addressing social inequality. Bolsonaro has said he views unemployment as worse than COVID-19 itself (Correio Brasiliense 2020). For him keeping the economy open during the pandemic (as opposed to hard lockdowns), was the priority and influenced the increased contagious of COVID 19. Given his populist and anti-intellectual style, Bolsonaro has repeatedly resisted recommendations made by scientific experts and state governors in how to manage the COVID-19 crisis (Fraser 2020). At the beginning of the epidemic Bolsonaro fired his Minister of Health after disagreeing over basic sanitary measures to avoid the virus’s spread. His next Minister of Health, resigned from office after refusing to bow to Bolsonaro’s pressure with respect to the use of hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment (Granato 2020). Worse still, Bolsonaro appointed an Army General with no medical experience, as the interim Minister of Health, a post he has held for a year before exonerated by the own president. Bolsonarism, a neologism for the president’s leadership approach, is not a comprehensive political doctrine since it lacks either a ‘coherent scheme of ideas or an integrative political worldview (Bustamante and Mendes 2021). Part of what unites its supporters is an anti-establishment doctrine resentful of political parties, intellectuals, and traditional elites. Like the most usual forms of populist ideology, it attempts to distinguish between a ‘virtuous’ and ‘homogeneous people’ and a poorly defined set of ‘others,’ who are a threat to the ‘rights, values, prosperity, identity and voice’ of the genuine people (Albertazzi and McDonell 2008). Given its populist element, Bolsonarism presents itself as a thin-centered ideology that considers society split into two homogeneous and antagonistic camps, “the pure

5  Social Value During a Pandemic: Insights from Brazil

83

people” versus “the corrupt elite” and which argues that politics should be an expression of the general will of the people (Müller 2016). A key element of Bolsonarism is the claim that a political leader should govern only for the ‘good citizens,’ who share the virtues of the political leader instead of the vices of their opponents. The concept of a good citizen as a ‘model’ citizen plays a crucial role in this ideology because it creates a narrower boundary for the concept of citizenship (Queiroz et al. 2021). Neither being born in a community nor having a legal relationship with the state is enough to achieve this status. One must commit, instead, to the mindset that embodies Bolsonaro’s moral and political practice. The concept of good citizen fixes the scope of legitimate policies and the rightful beneficiaries of state protection. It presents itself as an alternative to the universalistic claim of human rights, the core element of which is the dignity available to all people. For the good citizen, dignity is a status earned by those who mimic the president, support the economy, and lack the vices that can destabilize a particular form of life. The only special virtue for citizenship is an unconditional fidelity to the leader and the social order that he defends. Good citizenship requires a special relationship with the populist leader, rather than any intellectual, moral, or civic capacity.

5.6 The North Region as a “Laboratory” for the Federal Government In January 2021, as hospitals in Manaus, the capital of Amazon State at the North region, were facing yet another collapse of services due to COVID-19, the then Health Minister traveled there to launch an initiative to promote the consumption of chloroquine as a prevention against infection. At the same time, the ministry ignored signs that Manaus was suffering from shortages of oxygen in hospitals. The omission would result in the death of dozens of patients from asphyxia. At the same time, a study of the use of a substance called proxalutamide, led by a physician without scientific credentials, resulted in several deaths (Taylor 2021). The federal government saw Manaus, and Amazon state more generally, as “a laboratory” to apply the decisions of the “parallel cabinet” to manage COVID-19, in ways consistent with their own values and interests. The tragedy caused by COVID-19 in the North region increased in size when the focus of the analysis turns to Indigenous people and riverside communities. The serological survey EPICOVID-19 BR, from the Federal University of Pelotas (Hallal and Victora 2021), showed that, since the beginning of the pandemic, Indigenous people were 80% more likely to be infected with COVID-19 compared to whites living in the same area (Castro 2021). Findings from several studies showed that the COVID-19 mortality rate among Indigenous people (the number of deaths per 100,000 inhabitants) is 150% higher than the Brazilian average, and 20% higher than that recorded in the North region alone – the highest among the five

84

M. Kisil

regions of the country. Equally worrying is the lethality rate: among Indigenous people, the rate is 6.8%, while the average for Brazil is 5% and, for the North region, 4.5%. From the beginning of the pandemic, public health officers alerted the authorities that the Indigenous population was extremely vulnerable to COVID-19 and, as such, required important attention. Although alerted, the federal government continued to negate the evidence. This all translates to a never-before-seen decline in life expectancy. Some states, such as Amazon, returned to mortality levels that had not existed since 2004. There was 4.42  years decline in  life expectancy, which went from 75.41 years to 70.99. The second biggest drop occurred in Rondônia: from 76.41 to 72.49 years, that is, 3.92 years younger. According to Castro (2021), the decline in life expectancy resulted from the interaction of COVID-19 with preexisting diseases, a condition recognized as syndemic (Castro 2021). Primary contributing factors are not only the individual’s health situation, but the social, economic, political, and environmental components that contribute to worsen their vulnerability. Historically, in addition to the lack of assistance and basic services, the North region has already experienced several epidemics or outbreaks of diseases such as dengue, malaria, and yellow fever. These diseases have a direct epidemiological relation with the deforestation of the Amazon rain forest. For example, on average, every deforested square kilometer results in 27 new cases of malaria (Ellwanger et al. 2020). The Bolsonaro government used the turmoil caused by the COVID-19 pandemic to remove environmental protections while the public was distracted, to promote natural resources and agricultural expansion (Milhorance 2021).

5.7 COVID-19 Epidemic: An Opportunity for Building a More Equal and Fair Society The pandemic revealed inequities that clearly reflect cultural and social values embedded in the elites and the Brazilian people, which in turn, and affects access to basic human services (like that described in the case of the North region of Brazil). Nevertheless, the pandemic also revealed how public authorities used a set of counter values that undermined the social, economic and ecological wellbeing of most Brazilians – ignoring the science on COVID-19, dismantling public agencies and budgets for social policy, corruption, and removing environmental protections (among others). After this period of darkness, it is necessary to learn from the pandemic such that Brazil can recover and rebuild, in ways that focus on creating social value. The pandemic revealed a paramount value to most Brazilians: solidarity. There were numerous initiatives of solidarity during the pandemic that brought together individuals, civil society organizations, business leaders, students and professionals, and local government members. From individual to collective efforts, from urban to

5  Social Value During a Pandemic: Insights from Brazil

85

rural areas in all regions of the country. People decided to band together to tackle the consequences of COVID-19: from under-resourced health services, unemployment, the closing of schools, and increased number of individuals and families suffering famine and homelessness. Daily, the TV news presented a list of projects, campaigns, and new creative initiatives to assist those in need – all ran by people, who pooled together to address their collective needs. According to the ABCR (Brazilian Association of Fundraisers) donation monitor, in the four months between May and August of 2020, Brazilians donated more than US $1.2 billion directly to people in need. This amount represented 1.7 times the amount donated the whole of 2019 (Lucca-Silveira et al. 2021). Another individual and collective value to rebuild the Brazilian society after the pandemic is resilience. Bonanno defines resilience as a process of bouncing back from difficult experiences and adapting well in the face of adversity, trauma, tragedy, threats, or significant sources of stress (Bonanno 2020). During the pandemic, the Brazilian people has demonstrated a profound resilience to survive, even with federal government mismanagement and poor leadership. Two major modes of resilience came out in the case of Brazil: individual and collective. Individual resilience brought new leaders at community level that demonstrated the capacity to foster, engage in, and sustain positive relationships with community members to help them to endure and recover from stress and social isolation caused by the pandemic (Ortega and Orsini 2020). Such leadership create conditions for a community resilience expresses in the success of communities to provide and find resources to attend the needs of their members. One example of community resilience is the way the communities living in favelas (slums) faced the pandemic and how they organized their own systems for basic services to their members in need. In Rio de Janeiro, the poor slum area of Complexo de Favelas da Maré had a 30.8% COVID-19 death rate, while in the wealthy Leblon neighborhood had 2.4% (Fernandes et al. 2020). However, people living in slums and peripheries established community organization and a strengthening of solidarity networks to fight the virus and reduce social, economic and health impacts in the territories: fighting against fake news, enhancing preventive actions, the collection of donations and the distribution of food and sanitization materials, and providing shelter to infected residents for quarantine. Another example is the Mães de Favela (Mothers of the Slums) campaign held by CUFA (a Brazilian network of favela-­ based organizations) (CUFA 2021). The initiative helped women leadership throughout Brazil’s poorest communities in large cities to meet their needs and to organize the delivery of basic human services for their own family members, as well as children and elderly people from the community. During this time of need it was grassroots actions that met the needs of Brazilian people in need – and they did this through their own resources.

86

M. Kisil

5.8 Final Comments Brazil’s incompetence in dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic quickly became international knowledge (Ferigato et al. 2020). Evidence shows that the Brazilian government did not prepare itself for COVID-19, despite the warnings, and did not implement individual and collective measures to mitigate virus spread. After more than 680,000 deaths due to COVID-19, Pedro Hallal, a leading epidemiologist behind the first study to quantify the scale of the Brazil’s disastrous handling of COVID-19, declared that Brazil could have saved 400,000 lives if the country had implemented stricter social distancing measures and launched a vaccination program earlier (Milhorance 2021). Considering the system’s strong primary care services and reputation on preventive medicine, with an exemplary national immunization program (CONASS 2017), having the capacity of vaccinating more than 60 million people per month (Passarinho 2021), one would believe that the Brazilian people were better prepared to face the crisis. However, the clientelism of the state, with its focus on maintaining state power and the status quo, meant the politics of inequality continued and worsened during COVID-19: to rebound and recover, there is much work to be done. This process of rebound and recovery will require focus on social value  – measures built by the people who these initiatives must support, the marginalized, the poor, people of color and Indigenous communities, and women. The pandemic showed that these communities can organize to meet their own needs – supporting these communities and building on the solidarity and resilience they built up during the pandemic is a first step to addressing the deep-seated inequality in Brazil – a failure to do so does a disservice to future generations of Brazilians and Brazil, leaving them vulnerable to shocks like the pandemic, which will inevitably come again.

References Albertazzi D, McDonell D (2008) Introduction. In: Albertazz D, McDonell D (eds) Twenty-first century populism. Palgrave, Basingstoke, p 1 Beltrán-Sánchez H, Andrade FCD (2016) Time trends in adult chronic disease inequalities by education in Brazil: 1998–2013. Int J Equity Health 15(1):139 Bonanno GA (2020) Psychological science and COVID-19: remaining resilient during a pandemic. Association for Psychological Science. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/ backgrounders/backgrounder-­1-­resilient.html. Accessed 31 Aug 2022 Brazilian Institute for Geography and Statistics [IBGE] (2019) Desigualdades Sociais por Cor ou Raça no Brasil (trans: Social Inequality by Color or Race in Brazil). https://biblioteca.ibge.gov. br/visualizacao/livros/liv101681_informativo.pdf. Accessed 31 Aug 2022 Bustamante T, Mendes CH (2021) Freedom without responsibility: the promise of Bolsonaro’s COVID-19 denial. Jus Cogens 3(2):181–207 Castro M (2021) Quando 1+1 não é igual a 2: Covid-19 deve ser discutida usando o conceito de sindemia (trans: When 1+1 does not equal 2: Covid-19 should be discussed using the concept

5  Social Value During a Pandemic: Insights from Brazil

87

of syndemic). https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/colunas/marcia-­castro/2021/10/quando-­11-­nao-­ e-­igual-­a-­2.shtml. Accessed 31 Aug 2022 Central Union of the Slums [CUFA] (2021) Mothers of the Favelas project. https://en.unesco.org/ fieldoffice/brasilia/projects/maes-­da-­favela. Accessed 31 Aug 2022 Christensen T, Lægreid P (2020) Balancing governance capacity and legitimacy: how the Norwegian government handled the COVID-19 crisis as a high performer. Public Adm Rev 80(5):774–779 Conselho Nacional de Secretários de Saúde [CONASS] (trans: National Council of Health Secretaries) (2017) A queda da imunização no Brasil (trans: The decline in immunization in Brazil). https://www.conass.org.br/ consensus/queda-da-imunizacao-brasil/. Accessed 22 Aug 2022 Correio Brasiliense (2020) “Desemprego é crise muito pior do que coronavírus”, diz Bolsonaro (trans: Unemployment is a crisis much worst than corona virus”, says Bolsonaro). https:// www.correiobraziliense.com.br/app/noticia/politica/2020/03/22/interna_politica,835990/ desemprego-­e-­crise-­muito-­pior-­do-­que-­coronavirus-­diz-­bolsonaro.shtml. Accessed 31 Aug 2022 Croda JHR, Garcia LP (2020) Resposta imediata da Vigilância em Saúde à epidemia da COVID-19 (trans: Immediate Health Surveillance response to the COVID-19 epidemic). Epidemiol Serv Saude 29(e2020002). https://doi.org/10.5123/S1679-­49742020000100021 Dai B, Fu D, Meng G et  al (2020) The effects of governmental and individual predictors on COVID-19 protective behaviors in China: a path analysis model. Public Adm Rev 80(5):797–804 Ellwanger JH, Kulmann-Leal B, Kaminski VL et  al (2020) Beyond diversity loss and climate change: impacts of Amazon deforestation on infectious diseases and public health. Proc Braz Acad Sci 92(1):e20191375. https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-­3765202020191375 Faoro R (2001) Os Donos do poder: formação do patronato político brasileiro (trans: The owners of power: formation of Brazilian political patronagem). Globo, Sao Paulo Ferigato S, Fernandez M, Amorim M et al (2020) The Brazilian Government’s mistakes in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Lancet 396(10263):1636 Fernandes MC (2021) Para o legado da CPI ultrapassar 2022 (trans: For the CPI legacy to surpass 2022). Valor Economico. https://valor.globo.com/politica/coluna/para-­o-­legado-­da-­cpi-­ ultrapassar-­2022.ghtml. Accessed 31 Aug 2022 Fernandes LACD, Silva CAFD, Dameda C et  al (2020) Covid-19 and the Brazilian reality: the role of favelas in combating the pandemic. Front Sociol 117. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fsoc.2020.611990 Fraser B (2020) How anti-science attitudes have impacted the coronavirus pandemic in Brazil. Sci Am 7:225 Government of Brazil (2021) Relatório da Comissão Parlamentar de Inquérito sobre a Pandemia (trans: Report of the parliamentary Commission of Inquiry about the pandemic). Federal Senate. Disponível em: https://legis.senado.leg.br/comissoes/mnas?codcol=2441&tp=4. Accessed 22 Aug 2022 Granato L (2020) Mandetta demitido: o que fazer quando você não concorda com o chefe? (trans: Mandetta fired: what to do when you don’t agree with the boss?). https://exame.com/carreira/mandettademitido-­o-­que-­fazer-­quando-­voce-­nao-­concorda-­com-­o-­chefe/ Accessed 28 July 2022 Hallal PC, Victora CG (2021) Overcoming Brazil’s monumental COVID-19 failure: an urgent call to action. Nat Med 27(6):933–933 Hunter W, Power TJ (2019) Bolsonaro and Brazil’s illiberal backlash. J Democr 30(1):68–82 Kim SJ, Bostwick W (2020) Social vulnerability and racial inequality in COVID-19 deaths in Chicago. Health Educ Behav 47(4):509–513 Levitsky S, Ziblatt D (2018) How democracies die. Crown, New York Lucca-Silveira MP, Rodrigues P, Jerabek M et al (2021) Brazilian foundations and the responses to COVID-19. Found Rev 13(3). https://doi.org/10.9707/1944-­5660.1579

88

M. Kisil

MacDonald SB (2020) Bolsonaro’s first year: balancing the economy and cultural wars. Center for Strategic and International Studies. https://www.csis.org/analysis/bolsonaros-­first-­year-­ balancing-­economy-­and-­cultural-­wars. Accessed 31 Aug 2022 Margolis PA, Greenberg R, Keyes LL et al (1992) Lower respiratory illness in infants and low socioeconomic status. Am J Public Health 82(8):1119–1126 Milhorance F (2021) Brazil could have stopped 400,000 Covid deaths with better response, expert says. The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/global-­development/2021/jun/29/brazil-­ coronavirus-­deaths-­jair-­bolsonaro. Accessed 31 Aug 2022 Monteiro SAS, Yoshimoto E, Ribeiro PRM (2020) A produção acadêmica sobre a questão da violência contra a mulher na emergência da pandemia da covid-19 em decorrência do isolamento social (trans: Academic production on the issue of violence against women in the emergence of the covid-19 pandemic as a result of social isolation). Doxa: Rev Bras Psico Educ 22(1):152–170 Moon MJ (2020) Fighting COVID-19 with agility, transparency, and participation: wicked policy problems and new governance challenges. Public Adm Rev 80(4):651–656 Müller JW (2016) What is populism? University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia Nassif LP, Carvalho LBD, Lederman Rawet E (2021) Multi-dimensional inequality and COVID-19 in Brazil. Investigación económica 80(315):33–58 Ortega F, Orsini M (2020) Governing COVID-19 without government in Brazil: ignorance, neoliberal authoritarianism, and the collapse of public health leadership. Glob Public Health 15(9):1257–1277 Oxfam International (2021) Brazil: extreme inequality in numbers https://www.oxfam.org/en/ brazil-­extreme-­inequality-­numbers. Accessed 22 Aug 2022 Passarinho N (2021) Brasil consegue vacinar 60 milhões por mês contra covid-19; só falta a vacina, diz fundador da Anvisa (trans: Brazil manages to vaccinate 60 million a month against covid-19; the only thing missing is the vaccine, says Anvisa founder) BBC Brazil https://www. bbc.com/portuguese/brasil-­56104951. Accessed 31 Aug 2022 Preston SH, Taubman P (1994) Socioeconomic differences in adult mortality and health status. In: Martin LG, Preston SH (eds) Demography of aging. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, pp 279–318 Price-Haywood EG, Burton J, Fort D et  al (2020) Hospitalization and mortality among black patients and white patients with Covid-19. N Engl J Med 382(26):2534–2543 Queiroz RMR, Bustamante T, Meyer EPN (2021) From Antiestablishmentarianism to Bolsonarism in Brazil. In: Routledge handbook of illiberalism, 1st edn. Routledge, London, pp 778–795 Shadmi E, Chen Y, Dourado I et al (2020) Health equity and COVID-19: global perspectives. Int J Equity Health 19(104). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-­020-­01218-­z Taylor L (2021) Covid-19: trial of experimental “covid cure” is among worst medical ethics violations in Brazil’s history, says regulator. BMJ 375(2819). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2819 Thomas G (2019) We are god-fearing men”: Brazil’s president a friend to trump and biblical values. CBN News https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/march/exclusive-­interview-­we-­ are-­god-­fearing-­men-­brazils-­president-­is-­a-­friend-­to-­president-­trump-­and-­biblical-­values. Accessed 31 Aug 2022 Tornaghi C (2021) Inequality is Brazil’s Achilees Heel. America’s Quarterly. https://www.americasquarterly.org/article/inequality-­is-­brazils-­achilles-­heel. Accessed 31 Aug 2022 Viacava F, Porto SM, Carvalho CDC et  al (2019) Desigualdades regionais e sociais em saúde segundo inquéritos domiciliares (Brasil, 1998-2013) (trans: Regional and social inequalities in health according to household surveys (Brazil, 1998-2013)). Cienc Saude Colet 24(7):2745–2760. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-­81232018247.15812017 World Health Organization [WHO] (2020) WHO Director-General’s opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19-11. https://www.who.int/director-­general/speeches/detail/who-­director-­ general-­s-­opening-­remarks-­at-­the-­media-­briefing-­on-­covid-­19%2D%2D-­11-­march-­2020

Part II

Social Value in Practice

Chapter 6

Integrating Social Value in Landscape Planning: Experiences from Working with Indigenous Communities in Australia David Hinchley, Frank Weisenberger, Damien Parriman, James Fitzsimons, and Mike Heiner

6.1 Introduction Many Indigenous societies have a non-dualistic view of the human and natural sphere, where humanity is an inseparable part of nature (Atleo 2005; Berkes 2008; RiverOfLife et al. 2020). Experiences from community-based planning in Australia show an increasing popularity of planning and decision-making tools that readily integrate social value with environmental and cultural outcomes in a holistic way. This chapter describes how Healthy Country Planning and Community-based

D. Hinchley (*) The Nature Conservancy, Carlton, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected] F. Weisenberger Frank Weisenberger Consulting, Coburg, VIC, Australia D. Parriman Ambooriny Burru Foundation Group, KRED Enterprises, Broome, WA, Australia J. Fitzsimons The Nature Conservancy, Carlton, VIC, Australia School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, VIC, Australia M. Heiner The Nature Conservancy, Global Conservation Lands, Fort Collins, CO, USA © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 W. Nikolakis, R. Moura da Veiga (eds.), Social Value, Climate Change and Environmental Stewardship: Insights from Theory and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23145-2_6

91

92

D. Hinchley et al.

Development by Design enables Indigenous communities in Australia to integrate social value with cultural and environmental outcomes in their decision making for Country.1

6.2 Healthy Country Planning: Community-Defined Values for Community-Led Management Historically Western concepts of conservation have been dominated by science and generally centered around ecological processes and environmental systems. In contrast, Indigenous Australians talk about ‘country’ as a multi-dimensional construct that integrates animals, plants, and people in the landscape, firmly based on the connectedness of the human and natural environment (Rose 1996). In Australia, over the past two and a half decades, this approach has come to the forefront in the context of the increasing contribution of Indigenous community-­ owned and managed land to the protected area network, now making up approximately 44% of the area of the National Reserve System (DAWE 2020). This trend has influenced a rethink of conventional western approaches to conservation, and has provided an opportunity to integrate the broader concept of ‘country’ in conservation (Carr et al. 2017; Moorcroft 2012; Moorcroft et al. 2012). Healthy Country Planning, a participatory planning process to develop natural and cultural resource management plans, is one such adaptation. Healthy Country Planning was derived from the widely used Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (Conservation Standards), which draw on the collective experience of adaptive managers and robust strategic planning approaches from various industries. As such, the Conservation Standards provide a clear and systematic approach to planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation (Conservation Measures Partnership 2020). From this basis, Healthy Country Planning evolved to enable the meaningful participation of Indigenous communities in the conservation planning process and was adapted to include tangible and intangible social and cultural values together with environmental matters (Table 6.1) (Moorcroft 2012). Following the first Healthy Country Planning project in 2009 with the Wunambal Gaambera people of the Kimberley regions in north-western Western Australia (Moorcroft 2012; Moorcroft et  al. 2012), HCP was taken up more broadly, and became the preferred planning framework of Indigenous land managers in the Kimberley. Annual training workshops held since 2011 across northern Australia exposed a large number of Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory and Queensland to Healthy Country Planning and provided communities with the skills and capacity to develop their own plans. With an increased popularity of Healthy  From Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives, the term ‘Country’ is generally used to refer to distinct geo-cultural communities, rather than to the whole Australian continent. ‘Country’ is an Aboriginal English word that encapsulates the way Indigenous Australians understand and relate to their ancestral estate (Rose 2002; Hunt 2013). 1

6  Integrating Social Value in Landscape Planning: Experiences from Working…

93

Table 6.1  Characteristics of healthy country planning (CCNet Australia 2019) Characteristics of healthy country planning Places indigenous knowledge and community values as the driver of the conservation planning process Structured process to empower local decision-making and place-based solutions Uses language that is clear and locally relevant Simple and easy to understand while exploring complex issues at many scales Provides a clear connection between vision, values, concerns and on-ground actions Outputs and tools are highly visual, making plans accessible and giving identity and ownership Forms a clear basis for investment, funding, job programs and operations Translates into clear work plans, monitoring and evaluation plans

Country Planning throughout northern Australia, Indigenous communities in the central and southern regions of Australia showed a growing interest in the community-­led planning approach and since then has resulted in the development of Healthy Country Plans in other parts of the nation (e.g. Carr et al. 2017; Carter et al. 2022; Woods et al. 2022). As of 2022, more than 44 Healthy Country Plans have been developed by Indigenous communities in six Australian States and Territories, covering an area of 109.8 million hectares of land and sea country. Adaptations to conservation planning processes, like Healthy Country Planning, can enable a more meaningful engagement with Indigenous communities through a participatory approach that considers local governance, and creates a platform to bring western science and Indigenous cultural and ecological knowledge together (Moorcroft 2012). Healthy Country Planning provides an opportunity to embed the concept of social value in the planning process from the outset, including tangible and intangible social and cultural values alongside environmental assets and values. This ensures that the goals, strategies and measures developed in the planning process appropriately consider the social and cultural dimensions of Indigenous communities and reflects the connectedness of the human and natural environment. A recent analysis of 40 Healthy Country Plans across Australia highlights the importance of the issue: 35 plans listed “Cultural Practice and Traditional Knowledge” as important values, while 25 listed “Livelihoods” and, 23 listed “Community and Capacity” (unpublished data). In terms of social value, investment in Indigenous land management produces numerous benefits. For example, research by Social Ventures Australia (SVA) (2014) found that the Kanyirninpa Jukurrpa’s Martu Living Deserts Project (Jupp et al. 2015) and other on-Country programs, guided by the development of a Healthy Country Plan, have delivered a wide range of positive social, economic and cultural outcomes (e.g. increased income; increased ability to provide for family; maintaining connection to country; transfer of knowledge in relation to country, culture and language; increased pride within the community). The value of these outcomes was estimated to be $55 million over five financial years (FY10–FY14) from a $20 million investment: a Social Return on Investment (SROI) ratio of 3:1 (i.e. for every dollar invested, ~$3 of social, economic and cultural value was created). In a similar

94

D. Hinchley et al.

review of Indigenous Protected Areas in Australia, SVA (2016) calculated that the Warddeken Indigenous Protected Area (that also had a Healthy Country Plan) delivered an SROI ratio of 3.4:1 based on the investment in operations between FY09-FY15 (i.e. for every $1 invested, approximately $3.4 of social, economic, cultural and environmental value has been created for stakeholders). By placing the planning process in the hands of indigenous communities, Healthy Country Planning has played an important foundational role for many of these positive outcomes.

6.3 Assessing Impacts of Development Options: Community-­Based Development by Design Development by Design is a spatial planning approach developed by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and partner organizations over the last decade to support more proactive planning for economic development, to steer negative impacts away from high value natural areas and to supports compensatory actions for adverse impacts that do occur (Kiesecker et al. 2009, 2010). Development by Design was developed in response to increasing recognition of development pressures and the need to move from reactive, site-by-site mitigation of impacts to a proactive landscape scale approach that balances development and conservation goals to improve impact mitigation. Development by Design has been applied globally at local, regional and national scales to evaluate conservation priorities, assess cumulative impacts in regions, reduce conflicts between conservation values and development, and to strengthen the application of the mitigation hierarchy (Fitzsimons et  al. 2014; Heiner et  al. 2019a; Obermeyer et  al. 2011; Saenz et  al. 2013; World Economic Forum 2016). In Australia, the Development by Design approach is particularly relevant in the context of development pressures emerging from an increased focus on agricultural development and expanding mineral and gas extraction across Northern Australia over the coming decades (Parliament of Australia 2014). These development proposals have implications for conservation values, biodiversity and the ecosystem services of largely natural landscapes (Morán-Ordóñez et al. 2017), as well as for cultural and social values of the communities, (particularly Indigenous peoples, that manage or depend on these landscapes (NAILSMA 2012). Indigenous Australians are responsible for managing well over 45% of land in northern Australia, and have interests over the entire region (NAILSMA 2022). To cater for an Australian Indigenous context, the Development by Design approach has been adapted to specifically support Indigenous communities in the assessment of development options – recognizing that:

6  Integrating Social Value in Landscape Planning: Experiences from Working…

95

• Indigenous people have various forms of land tenure and rights to much of northern Australia, and since cultural values are closely linked with natural values, the assessment of development options needs to consider natural, cultural and social values together. • The major process of recognizing Indigenous land rights across Australia (known as Native Title) leads to the establishment of a Registered Native Title Body Corporate (RNTBC) to represent Indigenous community interests. Holding Native Title rights on trust for the Indigenous community, RNTBCs (also known as Prescribed Bodies Corporate), where existent, participate in the development assessment process (Australian Government 2017). Despite their important role, RNTBCs in general are under-resourced, limiting their capacity to give genuine Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) to development proposals. • While there is increased awareness of the need to balance multiple societal values in land use and development planning, environmental impact assessments (EIA) typically focus in a reactive way on single project footprints with an emphasis on environmental values and specifically biodiversity. While both the Federal government and State/Territory governments also have laws that protect various types of Indigenous cultural heritage, heritage impact assessments (HIA) focus primarily on sites and not social values, and are considered separately from biodiversity values. • Separating values may miss opportunities to jointly plan for and manage impacts to both environmental and social values and integrated approaches may have particular benefit in northern Australia for supporting sustainable development that is culturally appropriate (Heiner et al. 2019b). To address these issues, Development by Design with Indigenous communities in Australia is built around the values and assets identified by the community in their Healthy Country Plans. Development by Design seeks to increase the capacity of RNTBCs or related organizations to proactively assess the impacts of potential development that may impact on the values and assets articulated in their Healthy Country plan, to make more informed decisions, demonstrate these impacts through reports and maps, and thereby be able to participate more effectively in the development assessment process. By highlighting impacts on community-defined values through community-based planning, Development by Design also aims to address questions about development decisions in Northern Australia where government policy supports mega-projects and the expected “trickle-down” benefits that flow to local populations (Gerritson et al. 2019). It directly addresses critical questions such as whether development (resources, commercial agriculture etc.) can be balanced with the ecological and cultural values of the region, and the aspirations of all of those who live there, and if so, what type of development, and where, is appropriate? (Simmonds et al. 2021).

96

D. Hinchley et al.

6.4 Case Study of Combined Use of Healthy Country Planning and Development by Design in Northern Australia: Nykina Mangala Area in Kimberley Region The first pilot of a community-based Development by Design process was undertaken with Walalakoo Aboriginal Corporation for the Nyikina Mangala Native Title area in north-western Australia (Fig.  6.1). As the Registered Native Title Body Corporate for the Nyikina Mangala native title holders, Walalakoo Aboriginal Corporation is responsible for representing their interests in assessing and negotiating development proposals that impact on their Country. The project explored: (1) how social and cultural values can be organized and analyzed spatially to support mitigation planning, (2) how social, cultural, and biodiversity values may reinforce each other to deliver better conservation outcomes and minimize conflict, and (3) how information on these values, in the hands of Indigenous communities, enables them to proactively assess development proposals and negotiate mitigation measures to conserve social, cultural, and biodiversity values following the mitigation hierarchy. The process is fully documented in Heiner et al. (2019b) and described briefly below: • A detailed data management and intellectual property agreement was developed prior to gathering and collating information for the study. • The first step was to use the Healthy Country Planning process to engage the community and define values that are important to the community. The Nyikina Mangala community defined a set of seven groupings of natural, cultural, and socio-economic values and assets that collectively represent ‘country’ (Fig. 6.2) (Walalakoo Aboriginal Corporation 2017).

Fig. 6.1  Location of the Nyikina Mangala native title area within the Fitzroy River Basin and Kimberley region of north west Western Australia

6  Integrating Social Value in Landscape Planning: Experiences from Working…

97

Fig. 6.2  Community values included in the Nyikina Mangala Development by Design (DbD) impact assessment tool. (Walalakoo Aboriginal Corporation 2017). Seven of the eight value groups identified by the Nyikina Mangala community could be represented spatially in the impact assessment tool. Within the broader grouping, for example Native Animal Species, the community included nested values, e.g. Threatened and Endangered Animal Species. In the majority of circumstances, impact assessment frameworks only consider the listed Threatened and Endangered Animal Species, but not the broader community values. Using the example of Native Animal Species, the community may identify a species of kangaroo that is valued by the community for sustenance purposes, but because it is common in distribution it would typically not be considered within impact assessment frameworks (which focus on listed species only)

Fig. 6.3  Workshopping the development of spatial datasets to represent and integrate social/cultural and biodiversity targets in an impact assessment framework

• To facilitate the consideration of these targets for decision-making and future Environmental Impact Assessment processes, spatial datasets were developed to represent and integrate social/cultural and biodiversity targets in an impact assessment framework (Fig. 6.3).

98

D. Hinchley et al.

• The spatial datasets represent the six of the groups of values defined by the Healthy Country Plan that could be spatially represented: Cultural and Heritage Sites, Nyikina Mangala Lore and Culture, Freshwater Places, Native Animals, Bushtucker/Bush Medicine Plants, and Right Way Fire. • To enable the Nyikina Mangala community to conduct rapid assessments of the potential impacts of development proposals in the on their Country, a customized Geographic Information System software application was developed to measures and reports the types and amounts of values occurring in a user-defined proposed impact area. • Tailored maps and reports were produced to communicate impacts to the values. This allows the Walalakoo Aboriginal Corporation to facilitate community decision-­making by visualizing and comparing various development scenarios (Fig.  6.4). Community members have been able to see and evaluate potential impacts and trade-offs associated with development proposals and come to collective decisions about which options to pursue. A generalized outline of this process is diagrammatically shown in Fig. 6.5.

Fig. 6.4  Spatial pattern of aggregated social/cultural targets and biodiversity targets

6  Integrating Social Value in Landscape Planning: Experiences from Working…

99

Fig. 6.5  Community-based Development by Design (DbD) process

6.5 Discussion: How Healthy Country Planning and Development by Design Can Be Used to Enable Social Value Despite owning or having native title rights to much of the landscape, Indigenous peoples in northern Australia often have limited opportunities to influence development decisions or to pursue types of economic development that meet their aspirations, on their terms. An analysis of the historical and current context of economic development in northern Australia identify a range of factors at play (Gerritson et al. 2019), including: • A relatively poor understanding of the biophysical and cultural characteristics of northern Australian landscapes, combined with poor recognition and use of the knowledge and interests of Indigenous people, leading to a history of failure of major economic development initiatives; and • A lack of effective policy responses to the combination of strong local Indigenous community interest in economic development, limited capacity to explore options and ongoing landscape degradation resulting from the predominant land uses. This includes absent or limited regional land-use planning and weak technical and other support available to Indigenous communities to understand options, assess longer-term implications, and make their own decisions about commercial use of their lands and waters.

100

D. Hinchley et al.

Several features differentiate community-based Development by Design from other approaches to impact assessment and help address these issues. Firstly, community-based Development by Design is targeted at supporting Indigenous landowners or rights-holders. In Australia this is predominantly through Registered Native Title Body Corporates (RNTBC’s) since the Native Title Act 1993 places RNTBC’s in a crucial role in the land use decision making process (AIATSIS 2022). By placing indigenous rights holders at the center of decision-­ making processes it helps address power imbalances common in current land use decision making processes. The negative impact of such power imbalances in decision-­making, capacity and governance on economic development opportunities for Indigenous communities in Australia have been well documented (Altman and Martin 2009; Hunt 2013; OECD 2020). The lack of effective policy in relation to Indigenous economic development in northern Australia perpetuates these imbalances. Community-based Development by Design recognizes the power imbalance in EIA processes and addresses this by being tailored to, and supportive of, the needs of the local community in the EIA process, initially by assisting RNTBCs to be more prepared for responding to development proposals through improved collation and organization of information, informed discussion and ability to demonstrate impacts visually and with written reports. By enabling communities to proactively plan and discuss development options also provides a tool for assisting Indigenous communities dealing with complexity and differing opinions. As noted by Altman and Martin (2009), there is often a diversity of views within Indigenous communities about economic development options, and these divisions can be exploited, to the detriment of the bargaining power of traditional owners and Indigenous interests. The community-based Healthy Country Planning and Development by Design can help reduce this risk by providing a structured framework to better evaluate development options and make decisions based on a clearer understand of potential impacts and trade-offs related to development proposals. Secondly, by focusing on a broad range of values that are of importance to Indigenous landowners (not restricted solely to listed threatened species and ecological communities or cultural heritage sites normally considered in EIA processes) it directly responds to community needs and aspirations (see Goolmeer et al. 2022). The process breaks down the walls between development planning and conservation by directly linking the land-use decision-making process with community driven conservation plans to better protect environmental and cultural values, while at the same time achieving socio-economic outcomes. Built on community-based plans such as Healthy Country Plans, Development by Design ensures that the resilience and integrity of natural and cultural values and assets is adequately considered and used to spatially visualize, report-on and mitigate the impacts of a development proposal on these community values. Thirdly, community-based Development by Design integrates with the existing governance arrangements of a community and is adaptable to the local context.

6  Integrating Social Value in Landscape Planning: Experiences from Working…

101

As a grassroots process, community-based Development by Design adapts to local decision-making processes and governance while at the same time aligning with relevant national legislation (e.g. the Native Title Act 1993, State and Federal Aboriginal Heritage and Environmental Protection legislation) and land-use decision making processes governed by such legislation (e.g. Future act processes - a proposed act on land or waters that affects native title rights and interests).

6.6 Lessons for Practice and Future Research Needs The features of community-based Healthy Country Planning and Development by Design described above address some of the key constraints to Indigenous economic development identified earlier, largely through empowering Indigenous communities to make informed decisions and more effectively influence development approval processes. However, it also has potential to be used in other contexts. For example, while the process has to date primarily been set up for individual Native Title areas, it also provides reports at a landscape level (e.g., catchment level). It could also be undertaken in parallel across multiple groups on a broader regional scale. This allows Healthy Country Planning and Development by Design to build a bottom-up regional picture of community values aspirations and build the capacity within communities to assess local impacts while considering cumulative impacts. In addition, community-based Development by Design directly addresses issue related to corporate social responsibility and social sustainability of development projects, on the premise that a vital ingredient in social sustainability is the capacity of communities to determine, or at least influence, those decisions that impact them (Trebeck 2009). After looking at four case studies of mining agreements on Indigenous lands across northern Australia, Trebeck (2009) concluded that a poor understanding of Indigenous capacity by the state and the mining industry was perpetuating dichotomous relationships with Indigenous people and that this, combined with the historic under-funding of services and the lack of recognition of the citizenship rights of Indigenous people, limits the capacity for economic and social engagement, and compounds Indigenous poverty. By supporting community-based planning efforts through Development by Design, development proponents have the opportunity to build trust, credibility and legitimacy – core elements of the process to gain a social license to operate for a project. There is potential to have this approach recognized, recommended or mandated as “best-practice” by government and/or corporations engaging with Indigenous communities or seeking to operate on Indigenous lands. Further development of the Development by Design approach could also enable evaluation of multiple future economic development options to assist Indigenous communities be even more proactive in finding future development pathways that meet their needs.

102

D. Hinchley et al.

6.7 Conclusions In conclusion, community-based Development by Design and Healthy Country Planning are complementary processes that support genuine FPIC with Indigenous communities in the land use decision making and development planning process through better integration of social value considerations. By supporting Indigenous landowners or rights-holders, the two processes help address the well-documented power imbalance in planning and decision-making processes and achieves more equitable outcomes by taking a proactive, integrated approach that considers environmental, socio-economic and cultural values together. Development by Design provides impact assessment capacity to Indigenous communities to enable them to meaningfully and more equitably participate in legislated development planning processes, and in negotiation with other stakeholders. In these respects, Development by Design differs from other impact assessment and multi-stakeholder processes for EIA that tend to treat all interest groups as equal “stakeholders”. We believe community-based Development by Design, if initiated prior to current legislatively-mandated development or land-use assessment and decision-making processes, ultimately results in better decisions and less risk for all parties as it improves community understanding, makes use of both community and scientific knowledge and improves FPIC processes.

References Altman J, Martin D (eds) (2009) Power, culture, economy: indigenous Australians and mining. Research monograph no. 30, Australian National University. ANU E Press, Canberra Atleo RE (2005) Tsawalk: a Nuu-Chah-Nulth worldview. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver Australian Government (2017) Registered native title bodies corporate. Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations, Canberra. https://www.oric.gov.au/top-­500/2015-­16/RNTBCs. Accessed 26 Aug 2022 Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies [AIATSIS] (2022) The Native Title Act and PBC Regulations. https://nativetitle.org.au/learn/native-­title-­and-­pbcs/native-­ title-­act-­and-­pbc-­regulations. Accessed 26 Aug 2022 Berkes F (2008) Commons in a multi-level world. Int J Commons 2(1):1–6 Carr B, Fitzsimons J, Holland N et al (2017) CAPitalising on conservation knowledge: using conservation action planning, healthy country planning and the open standards in Australia. Ecol Manag Restor 18:176–189 Carter R, Atkinson G, Burchill M et  al (2022) Djaara cultural authority drives inclusion of their knowledge and culture in a joint management plan for parks. Ecol Manag Restor 23(S1):117–128 Conservation Coaches Network Australia [CCNet Australia] (2019) Healthy country planning. https://www.ccnetglobal.com/networks/cop-­indigenous-­os-­projects/. Accessed 26 Aug 2022 Conservation Measures Partnership (2020) Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation Version 4.0. https://www.conservationmeasures.org/2020/02/27/version-­4-­0-­of-­the-­conservation-­ standards-­is-­here/. Accessed 26 Aug 2022

6  Integrating Social Value in Landscape Planning: Experiences from Working…

103

Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment [DAWE] (2020) Collaborative Australian protected area database 2020. DAWE, Canberra Fitzsimons J, Heiner M, McKenney B et al (2014) Development by Design in Western Australia: overcoming offset obstacles. Land 3:167–187 Gerritson R, Whitehead P, Stoeckl N (2019) Economic development across the north: historical and current context of possible alternatives. In: Russell-Smith J, James G, Pedersen H, Sangha KK (eds) Sustainable land sector development in northern Australia: indigenous rights, aspirations, and cultural responsibilities. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 53–84 Goolmeer T, Skroblin A, Grant C et  al (2022) Recognizing culturally significant species and indigenous-led management is key to meeting international biodiversity obligations. Conserv Lett:e12899. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12899 Heiner M, Galbadrakh D, Batsaikhan N et al (2019a) Making space: putting landscape-level mitigation into practice in Mongolia. Conserv Sci Pract 1(e12899):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/ csp2.110 Heiner M, Hinchley D, Fitzsimons J et al (2019b) Moving from reactive to proactive development planning to conserve indigenous community and biodiversity values. Environ Impact Assess Rev 74:1–13 Hunt J (2013) Engaging with indigenous Australia—exploring the conditions for effective relationships with aboriginal and Torres Strait islander communities. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Canberra and Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne Jupp T, Fitzsimons J, Carr B et al (2015) New partnerships for managing large desert landscapes: Experiences from the Martu Living Deserts Project. Rangel J 37:571–582 Kiesecker JM, Copeland H, Pocewicz A et al (2009) A framework for implementing biodiversity offsets: selecting sites and determining scale. Bioscience 59:77–84 Kiesecker JM, Copeland H, Pocewicz A et al (2010) Development by design: blending landscape-­ level planning with the mitigation hierarchy. Front Ecol Environ 8:261–266 Moorcroft H (2012) The Wunambal Gaambera healthy country plan. In: Figgis P, Fitzsimons JA, Irving I (eds) Innovation for 21st century conservation. Australian Committee for IUCN, Sydney, pp 84–90 Moorcroft H, Ignjic E, Cowell S et al (2012) Conservation planning in a cross-cultural context: the Wunambal Gaambera healthy country project in the Kimberley, Western Australia. Ecol Manag Restor 13:16–25 Morán-Ordóñez A, Whitehead AL, Luck GW et al (2017) Analysis of trade-offs between biodiversity, carbon farming and agricultural development in northern Australia reveals the benefits of strategic planning. Conserv Lett 10:94–104 North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance Ltd [NAILSMA] (2012) Indigenous futures and sustainable development in north Australia: Towards a framework for full Indigenous participation in economic development. NAILSMA Knowledge Series 018/2013. NAILSMA North Australian Indigenous Experts Panel, Darwin North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance Ltd [NAILSMA] (2022) Economic development and employment. https://nailsma.org.au/programs/economic-­ development-­and-­employment. Accessed 26 Aug 2022 Obermeyer B, Manes R, Kiesecker J et al (2011) Development by design: mitigating wind development’s impacts on wildlife in Kansas. PLoS One 6(10):e26698. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0026698 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2020) Linking indigenous communities with regional development in Australia. OECD Publishing, Paris RiverOfLife M, Poelina A, Bagnall D et al (2020) Recognizing the Martuwarra’s first law right to life as a living ancestral being. Transnatl Environ Law 9:541–568. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S2047102520000163 Rose DB (1996) Nourishing terrains: Australian aboriginal views of landscape and wilderness. Australian Heritage Commission, Canberra

104

D. Hinchley et al.

Rose DB (2002) Country of heart: an indigenous Australian homeland. Aboriginal Studies Press for the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Canberra Saenz S, Walschburger T, González JC et al (2013) Development by Design in Colombia: making mitigation decisions consistent with conservation outcomes. PLoS One 8(12):e81831. https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0081831 Simmonds JS, Dyer AB, Fitzsimons J et al (2021) Assessing biodiversity and cultural values for single-site and multi-property development proposals in northern Australia. NESP Threatened Species Recovery Hub Project 7.3 Report, Brisbane Social Ventures Australia [SVA] (2014) Evaluative social return on investment report: social, economic and cultural impact of Kanyirninpa Jukurrpa’s on-country programs. Social Ventures Australia, Melbourne Social Ventures Australia [SVA] (2016) Consolidated report on indigenous protected areas following social return on investment analyses. Report for the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. Social Ventures Australia, Melbourne The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia [Parliament of Australia] (2014) Pivot north: inquiry into the development of Northern Australia – final report. Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia, Canberra Trebeck K (2009) Corporate responsibility and social sustainability. In: Altman J, Martin D (eds) Power, culture, economy: indigenous Australians and mining. ANU E Press, Canberra, pp 127–147 Walalakoo Aboriginal Corporation (2017) Walalakoo healthy country plan 2017–2027. Walalakoo Aboriginal Corporation, Derby Woods R, Woods I, Fitzsimons JA (2022) Water and land justice for Indigenous communities in the Lowbidgee Floodplain of the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Int J Water Resour Dev 38:64–79 World Economic Forum (2016) Blueprints for a greener footprint: sustainable development at a landscape scale. World Economic Forum. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Blueprint_ for_a_Greener.pdf. Accessed 26 Aug 2022

Chapter 7

Lighting the Path Forward: Understanding Social Value from Indigenous Fire (Qwen) Stewardship William Nikolakis and Russell Myers Ross

7.1 Introduction Yunesit’in First Nation is reclaiming their fire (Qwen) stewardship after two generations of colonial government ‘fire suppression’ policy that prevented the exercise of these practices – which along with other factors increased fuel loads on the landscape and with this, created the conditions for the 2017 Hanceville wildfires (Nikolakis and Myers Ross 2022). Applying a ‘learning by doing’ approach, Yunesit’in members both plan for, and implement their proactive fire practices on to the landscape, which are low intensity ‘cool’ burn fires driven by the needs of the landscape and community goals (Nikolakis et al. 2020). Drawing from public funder metrics, the pilot Qwen program was initially evaluated through four general measures by funders (which can be thought of as goals to understand program performance): area stewarded (in hectares); people employed and trained (number and diversity of people employed); the level of planning, vision and program sustainability (generating plans where fire is a tool to meet the goals in these plans, supported by carbon funds); and partnerships and knowledge mobilization, (fostering partnerships for knowledge production and mobilization). On these measures, the program has been a success  – and the measures over time reveal the program is growing in size.

W. Nikolakis (*) Gathering Voices Society, Vancouver, BC, Canada Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada e-mail: [email protected] R. Myers Ross Yunesit’in Government, Williams Lake, BC, Canada © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 W. Nikolakis, R. Moura da Veiga (eds.), Social Value, Climate Change and Environmental Stewardship: Insights from Theory and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23145-2_7

105

106

W. Nikolakis and R. Myers Ross

However, three goals were  then developed by the community to evaluate the Qwen program, which encompass ecological, social, economic and cultural indicators: strengthening cultural connection and well-being, such as revitalizing and sharing Indigenous knowledge around fire; restoring the health of the land through Indigenous fire stewardship, to heal and steward ecosystems that need fire; and respecting traditional laws, or upholding stewardship responsibilities and relationships to land. A holistic approach is critical for understanding the connection between people and place, and the role that fire stewardship plays in mediating positive outcomes among these dimensions. This chapter identifies two key areas for consideration around social value and Indigenous fire stewardship for public and private funders: broadening the time frame for evaluating outcomes from these programs; and accommodating more qualitative perspectives to capture Indigenous perspectives of social value. This latter point may be advanced through more collaboratively developed evaluation measures that draw from collective processes. The chapter next explores the context for building the fire stewardship program, and then the process for generating community goals. The chapter then examines the external measures for evaluating the program, and then a discussion and conclusions is provided.

7.2 Context The Chilcotin plateau, approximately 1000 m above sea level, is located west of the Fraser River and east of the Coast Mountain range in central British Columbia (Fig. 7.1). Winters are cold, and summers are hot and dry with lightning strikes that often ignite fires (Klenner et al. 2008). Frequent forest stand-maintaining fires characterize the disturbance regime, where fuels are consumed periodically (Gayton 2013). Many species of trees, shrubs and plants in the region are fire adapted, such

Fig. 7.1  Chilcotin region of British Columbia

7  Lighting the Path Forward: Understanding Social Value from Indigenous Fire…

107

as Lodgepole Pine (Pinus contorta Dougl.), which reproduces through fire (Logan and Powell 2001). The 2017 ‘Hanceville’ wildfires burned large swathes of the Chilcotin region, and in total the wildfires that summer covered some 2.57 million hectares and forced 70,000 people to evacuate their homes (Nikolakis and Roberts 2021). The territories of Yunesit’in were severely impacted, with forests and grasslands scorched; while the social impacts on Yunesit’in peoples included stressful evacuation, psychological and cultural impacts (Verhaegue et al. 2019), and reduced hunting and gathering opportunities and poor water quality. Prior to 2017, Yunesit’in people, in connecting with the land, had recognized the increased threat of wildfire. Hotter and drier weather coupled with increased fuel loads in an unhealthy forest, meant that the wildfire risk was clearly evident to community members (Nikolakis and Myers Ross 2022). However, the community was not empowered to mitigate this wildfire threat as the British Columbia government asserted its jurisdiction to manage for wildfire. For millennia, Indigenous Peoples across British Columbia used fire to shape the landscape (Turner 1999). In the Chilcotin, fire was used to encourage ungulate browsing, thin understory vegetation, and prevent conifer and sagebrush encroachment into grasslands – hence Indigenous fire stewardship is critical to ecosystem function (Blackstock and McAllister 2004; Turner 1999). Indigenous Qwen (fire) stewardship (or management) in the Chilcotin influenced the region’s historical fire regime, contributing to a fire-adapted landscape (Kay et al. 1999). However, from the 1940s onwards, provincial government policies of fire suppression (Lake and Christianson 2019) meant fire could not be put to the landscape, which fundamentally altered the structure and composition of forests and grasslands, resulting in fuel buildup and enhanced wildfire risk (Blackstock and McAllister 2004). Nikolakis and Roberts (2020, p. 1) defined Indigenous fire management as “the proactive use of fire to achieve multiple and complex landscape-level objectives”, which can include cleaning the landscape, mitigating wildfire, ceremony, and promoting food security (Lake and Christianson 2019; Mistry et al. 2016). Indigenous fire stewardship seeks to bring the right fire, to the right place at the right time. In Australia, where Indigenous fire management programs are the most established, empirical studies, typically in the northern tropical savannas, show beneficial outcomes for mitigating late-season wildfires, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and conserving biodiversity (da Veiga and Nikolakis 2022; Moura et al. 2019; Nikolakis et al. 2023; Petty et al. 2015; Russell-Smith et al. 2013). Social and livelihood benefits are also documented among participants, like skills and training (Russell-Smith et al. 2013), reductions in lifestyle diseases and improved overall health and wellbeing (Burgess et al. 2005) and other co-benefits like cultural maintenance and knowledge transmission (see Nikolakis et al. 2023; SVA 2016). Yunesit’in is a member of the Tsilhqot’in National Government, with constitutionally recognized rights and title to land in the Chilcotin region. In the face of increasing wildfire risk, Yunesit’in is revitalizing their Qwen (fire) stewardship practices to mitigate wildfire risk and steward their lands (Nikolakis and Myers Ross 2022; Nikolakis et al. 2020). A pilot Qwen (fire) stewardship program commenced in April 2019, supported by Gathering Voices Society, an organization that

108

W. Nikolakis and R. Myers Ross

facilitates Indigenous environmental stewardship programs  in British Columbia, and to share insights to support the growth of these programs across Canada (see www.gatheringvoices.com). The Yunesit’in Qwen  program  not only aims to strengthen landscape stewardship, but to train local people in fire stewardship practices rooted in Indigenous knowledge. The communities collectively determines where and when to burn, and establishes the rationale for these decisions (Nikolakis et al. 2020). There are two periods where low-intensity cool burns are applied to grasslands and forest understory by Yunesit’in community members, typically ignited by matches: spring (April–May) and fall (October–November). In the first round of burns in April 2019, six Yunesit’in community members were trained by Australian Indigenous fire-expert Victor Steffensen, who brought grounded Indigenous fire methodologies to revitalize Tsilhqot’in fire knowledge. The trainees were mentored in a place-based approach for fire management, connecting community members to their landscapes, interpreting conditions, seasons and local ecological indicators to determine where and when to burn. Burning was initially targeted at reducing forest fuel loads through understory burning (burning cured grasses, shrubs and dead biomass) and broadcast burning in meadows and grasslands. Subsequent burns since 2019, modified due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and parts of 2021, have seen community participation increase to 17 people in spring 2021 and maintaining at 15 people in spring 2022 (with a majority of participants being women in 2022). The areas burned have increased to over 250 hectares (ha) in 2022 from 5  ha in 2019. The program has also extended to collaborative burns with the British Columbia Wildfire Service to “Crown” lands in 2021 and 2022 – more of these burns on contested lands are critical to address the wildfire threat in the Chilcotin, and more broadly across British Columbia and Canada – but building these partnerships is relatively new and undeveloped. More insight is required about how to structure these programs and any partnerships more generally.

7.3 Community Goals from Indigenous Fire Stewardship: What Is Social Value in This Context? According to Amy Christianson, there is a dearth of studies on the goals from Indigenous fire stewardship in both the social science and natural science literatures. This, Christianson argues, is because of the “differences in worldview, ethical requirements and the added time often needed to build relationships” with Indigenous peoples, that makes such research both complex and time consuming (Christianson 2015, p.  197). Battiste and Youngblood (2000) described that Indigenous knowledge is underpinned by a principle of “totality or holism” (p. 42) that manifest in complex and interdependent goals for fire stewardship, and are broader than western perspectives on fire stewardship that is  focused on fire

7  Lighting the Path Forward: Understanding Social Value from Indigenous Fire…

109

suppression and the protection of life and property (among other goals) (Nikolakis and Roberts 2020). Using unstructured, open-ended interviews, Nikolakis et al. (2020) documented the fire-stewardship goals of Yunesit’in and Xeni Gwet’in community members for their fire stewardship program. Interviewees were purposively selected for their cultural and fire knowledge and to be representative of diverse voices in the communities. The interviews were open-ended and unstructured, but discussion focused on the importance of bringing fire back to the land and the goals desired from the program – what was the social value community members desired from the program? Three general goals from their Qwen (fire) management program were identified  in the interviews: strengthening cultural connection and well-being, which included revitalizing and sharing Indigenous fire knowledge that can connect people to their land and to individual and community well-being; restoring the health of the land through Indigenous fire stewardship, to produce resilience to wildfire and protect Mother Earth (biodiversity), and maintaining culturally important sites; and respecting traditional laws, or Tsilhqot’in laws that reflect and maintain responsibilities to the land and to future generations. These goals are interdependent, and reflects a more holistic perspective on value, reflected in the broad ambit of the goals desired  from fire stewardship. Nikolakis et  al. (2020) documented that Indigenous fire stewardship was viewed as one way to restore and revitalize traditional teachings and land stewardship practices, and to restore the health of the land and the communities. Strengthening cultural connection and well-being … it feels good … to take time to take care of the land. […] Being on the land, you always feel good. You feel that wind moving through you, you’re close to the fire, you’re close to your ancestors … everything about this feels like the right thing to do. (Participant) [T]hat would be nice for young people start really relearning what our elders did to maintain and keep Mother Earth healthy and keep it growing ‘cos I think that [fire management] should have been happening a long time ago. (Participant)

This goal, as the quotes from participants above reflect, has two key dimensions that are interconnected: healing the individual (and by virtue, the community) through stewarding the land and connecting with the land and ancestors, and maintaining and transferring Indigenous knowledge. Restoring the health of the land [I]t’s sad, those areas…torched by the fires took over 200 years to grow. To see their life shortened and areas in which the soil is going to take decades to come back in richness and to bring back the life. I think it’s a sadness and I kind of feel a little hopeless. Each year where you went to do berry picking or you went to collect medicine and it’s not there anymore. I think that’s a real hard reality for us. And that’s why …we got to do something to change that. (Participant) [O]ur forest got sick in a way… people talk about the beetles and cattle being like cancer on our land. And [people and the land] reflect each other. So, if we want a better reflection we try to treat ourself as good as we can, and we want to do the same for our land. (Participant)

110

W. Nikolakis and R. Myers Ross

This second goal encompasses four sub-goals identified in literature: fewer wildfires, healthy fire management, protection of Mother Earth (biodiversity), and maintaining culturally important sites. Interviewees saw these as interrelated goals, where protecting against wildfires through fire stewardship sustains Mother Earth, and maintains community health and cultural sites. This perspective reflects holistic worldviews that connect the health of the land with the health of people. Respecting traditional laws Creator gave everything for us to take care of […] the law of the land… It was your responsibility to take care of that herd of deer. Push them that way. Or it was our responsibility to burn that section when we’re done with it. And then in a way we kind of left those responsibilities, and they talk about rights nowadays. Giving us rights. But it was always our DNA, through our DNA, the responsibilities that we held ourself true to. (Participant) …They [government] had their [fire] policies and they didn’t look at our traditional law, because they thought that our traditional law meant nothing. … We have the knowledge. It’s just that we have to break the barrier where the white man’s law is to go back to our traditional law, to the Tsilhqot’in way…They have to listen. The law that’s set is not set by us, it’s set by our ancestors from way back…They lived by that law…And they did everything to preserve it, that’s how they survived. (Participant)

This goal on respecting traditional laws underscores the importance of restoring and revitalizing Tsilqhot’in laws, which are focused on people being responsible for the land, for all living things and for future generations. These laws can clash with the laws of non-Indigenous governments (the Crown) and their goals from fire stewardship, which can be focused primarily on property and supporting public safety and economic development (particularly related to lands and natural resources). This clash in laws and goals between First Nations and the Crown can impede the development of Indigenous led-fire stewardship programs as the Crown seeks to maintain control over fire management and the goals important to them, such as protecting property largely ‘held’ by the non-Indigenous population (including assets, timber and rangeland values). While First Nations are focused on maintaining the web of relationships on the landscape.

7.4 External Goals: Private and Public Funders The Yunesit’in Qwen (fire) program is funded through private and public funders. These funders had initially seen the program as important to mitigate wildfire threat and to move beyond the fire suppression approach. The funders typically negotiate measures to evaluate the program with Gathering Voices Society and Yunesit’in First Nation, which in turn reflect the funders own internal goals. We document four general measures for evaluating the program that are commonly applied by private and public funders to the program. The first is the area to which fire stewardship is being applied, typically in hectares. Second, is the number of people trained and employed in the program, and the inclusion of women, youth and elders. Third, is the level of planning and the sustainability of the program, including number of

7  Lighting the Path Forward: Understanding Social Value from Indigenous Fire…

111

planning meetings and alternative sources of funding obtained for the program. Fourth is knowledge mobilization and partnerships, or the media and scholarly outputs and number of partnerships developed by the program (with NGOs, academia and others).

7.4.1 Area Stewarded This quantitative measure offers a snapshot of the area to which fire is applied, with an increasing scale showing effectiveness and efficiency improvements over time. The first year of the pilot program in 2019 saw 5 ha burned in Yunesit’in – the aim was to get people familiar with fire, under the guidance of Victor Steffensen (Indigenous Australian fire expert). In 2020, the program was restricted through COVID-19 protocols, with some 20 ha burned for the whole year. While in April 2021, as the COVID-19 protocols were lifted and all participants double vaccinated, the program expanded with more people who burned more than 150 ha of diverse but fire-dependent ecosystems – from Interior Douglas Fir stands (understory burning) to dry grasslands (broadcast burning). In April 2022, fire was applied to more than 250 ha of mixed forests and grasslands. The areas were identified and prioritized in community planning sessions as areas that needed fuel removal as well as requiring fire to rejuvenate berry bushes (such as Saskatoon berry and soap berry). Drones and mapping technology are used to document and measure the area, and these areas are monitored and evaluated over time to understand the effects on the landscape (vegetation and forest health) and on fire behavior.

7.4.2 People Employed and Trained The number of people employed and trained in the program is like the area burned, an easily accountable measure that can be tracked over time. In the first year of the program, 2019, six Yunesit’in community members were trained by Victor Steffensen. The participants are trained to apply fire (ignition) to specified areas, and to monitor and extinguish the fire. During 2020, efforts were made to deepen the involvement of the broader community in the fire program – the vision was to have elders, youth and women included as participants in a ‘whole of community’ approach. However, the program was restricted through COVID-19 protocols, yet extensive planning was undertaken, often using Zoom meetings to build awareness of and participation in the program. In April 2021, the number of people employed in the program increased to 17 in Yunesit’in, and included five women, five youth and three elders. A key observation from the April 2021 burns was the interactions between these generations, which supported knowledge and skills transfer between participants. In April 2022, the number of participants was 15, with the majority being women. The participants are involved in various phases of Qwen (fire)

112

W. Nikolakis and R. Myers Ross

stewardship, from planning and goal setting, to the implementation of the fire plan, and ongoing monitoring and evaluation. While fire stewardship offers a vocation, the bigger goal for the program is promoting a deep sense of connection to the land among participants – reflecting Tsilhqot’in laws of stewardship of land for all living things and future generations.

7.4.3 Planning, Vision and Program Sustainability Developing a landscape level plan for the Qwen (fire) stewardship program is critical to deliver on goals such as wildfire mitigation – for instance, areas must be prioritized that have fuels (dead trees, leaf litter, dead shrubs etc.) built up which creates wildfire risk, and certain areas need fire for renewal and propagation. To identify these areas, community sessions are convened to identify these areas on maps, and these areas with fire risk are prioritized and a burn plan is developed for each zone (factoring in ecosystem type, topography, and natural barriers). These plans must be adaptive for dynamic conditions, and informed by ongoing monitoring of the landscape from program participants. Also, a holistic evaluation framework for the fire stewardship program is being developed by the community, rooted in their own goals, covering ecological goals (such as improved forest and grassland health, enhanced biodiversity), social goals (community employment, participant wellbeing), cultural goals (connecting people to the land and caring for the land) and economic goals (improved income, skills and training). Currently, Yunesit’in is developing a health and well-being framework with Gathering Voices Society, to assess the effect of participation on the physical and mental health and wellbeing of participants, and to bring insight to what Nikolakis et al. (2023) term a ‘stewardship-­ health nexus’. To sustain the program over the long term, a feasibility study on the potential to generate carbon credits from the fire stewardship work is being undertaken. These credits may be generated by the difference between the emissions from proactive burning measures and the potential emissions mitigated from summer wildfires. The revenues from the sale of carbon credits have been important for resourcing Indigenous fire stewardship activities in Australia and increasingly in other parts of the world (da Veiga and Nikolakis 2022; Lipsett-Moore et al. 2018).

7.4.4 Partnerships and Knowledge Mobilization The fourth goal commonly applied by funders is the number of partnerships and networks developed  through the program, including with government agencies, experts, stakeholders, NGOs and academics, to support program development and outreach. A partnership with the British Columbia Wildfire Service in April 2021 and 2022, saw cross-cultural and technical learnings produced in what was the first joint prescribed burn for ecosystem stewardship objectives with a First Nations in

7  Lighting the Path Forward: Understanding Social Value from Indigenous Fire…

113

the Chilcotin. The Qwen program is supported through resources and expertise by the Gathering Voices Society, and the University of British Columbia, Faculty of Forestry also provides scientific and technical support. A number of committees and working groups are convened and facilitated by the authors, for example, to examine the feasibility of a fire stewardship carbon credit, and includes practitioners, academics, and First Nations leaders. These partnerships have grown and play an important role in strengthening awareness of the program. There are diverse audiences for sharing knowledge and insights around the program, and these are targeted through different channels. For the academic and policy audiences, peer reviewed articles, webinars and other reports are produced to share lessons and findings from the program. For community members, funders and the broader public, videos, photos and social media posts are used to share insights to build awareness and to catalyze these programs across Canada, and across global networks for Indigenous fire managers.1 Knowledge mobilization activities are evaluated through analytics, such as number of outputs produced, and number of views of articles and videos  published. However, it is acknowledged that this tells us little about the overall impact of the knowledge shared on public perceptions of the program. Yet, we hear lots of positive feedback from community members about the videos and the social media following of Gathering Voices Society, which produces and shares the videos from the program, has grown significantly, suggesting a growing support and interest of the program.

7.5 Discussion and Conclusions The Yunesit’in Qwen program provides insight into how social value is defined in this context by community members: the three goals they identified (to evaluate the program), ‘strengthening cultural connection and wellbeing’ ‘restoring the health of the land’ and ‘respecting traditional laws’ were all qualitative in nature, holistic, and interdependent. There are areas where quantitative measures can be used, such as around number of participants, type of participants, and time spent on the land – yet numbers do not capture the stories of participants, which are critical to understanding the performance of this program. For community members, fire is viewed as a tool and an important piece of a complex and adaptive socio-ecological system that is bound up in duties and laws to steward lands for all living beings and future generations.  – as well as honoring ancestors. Hence, participants expressed their desired goals from the program as connecting people to land in deep ways, improving human health and wellbeing, empowerment, and maintaining and transferring traditional knowledge. While these are very personal stories, collectively, these

 See Gathering Voices Society’s Vimeo page with various videos documenting the program: https://vimeo.com/user105935556 1

114

W. Nikolakis and R. Myers Ross

stories paint a picture of the community’s direction – in this context, the fire stewardship program offers a pathway for Yunesit’in to reactivate and reassert their laws around respect and reciprocity, empowering people to heal and protect the land – and in doing so, the land heals people. However, mobilizing Indigenous fire practices is contested, and reflects a deeper clash around sovereignty  – it raises fundamental questions about who has the right to decide how land is governed and for what values. The program and its success can be instrumental in breaking down these barriers. It is acknowledged that funders will inevitably require more short term and quantitative measures to evaluate their investments, reflecting their need for consistent metrics across their full portfolio of funded projects. In this chapter we document the four general measures applied by funders to the program: area burned (in hectares), the number of people trained and employed in the program (including diversity), the level of planning and the sustainability of the program, and knowledge mobilization and partnerships. Where there is some overlap between these and the community measures (i.e. area burned and restoring the health of the land), there is the potential for more integrated quantitative and qualitative data, which can capture the stories of participants and stakeholders, but then also provide data that can be aggregated and compared more broadly. This chapter argues that taking a more holistic and long-term perspective on social value is critical when evaluating programs like the Yunesit’in  Qwen (fire) stewardship program – which can address multiple holistic goals – we call for more integrated reporting for funders, that includes both  stories and quantitative data. These stories are critical for mobilizing the perspectives of Indigenous peoples to capture what is most important to the people involved in the program, and to track performance over time. We document that social value in this context is inter-­ generational, bound up with the health of the land, and intimately connected to the revitalization of culture, self-governance and stewardship. This chapter identifies two key areas for reform around social value in this context for funding agencies: broadening the time frame for evaluating outcomes, and accommodating more qualitative perspectives to capture Indigenous perspectives and stories of social value. This latter point may be advanced through more collaboratively developed evaluation measures. Collaborating with the people involved in the intervention, and working with them to rethink social value and how this is measured and reported, is critical for outside funders to support the self-governance and stewardship goals of First Nations.

References Battiste M, Youngblood J (2000) Protecting Indigenous knowledge and heritage: a global challenge. UBC Press, Vancouver Blackstock MD, McAllister R (2004) First nations perspectives on the grasslands of the interior of British Columbia. J Ecol Anthropol 8(1):24–46

7  Lighting the Path Forward: Understanding Social Value from Indigenous Fire…

115

Burgess CP, Johnston FH, Bowman DMJS et al (2005) Healthy country: healthy people? Exploring the health benefits of Indigenous natural resource management. Aust N Z J Public Health 29(2):117–122 Christianson A (2015) Social science research on indigenous wildfire management in the 21st century and future research needs. Int J Wildland Fire 24(2):190–200 da Veiga RM, Nikolakis W (2022) Carbon programs and fire management: a systematic literature review. Soc Nat Resour 35(8):896–913. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2022.2053618 Gayton D (2013) British Columbia’s grassland resources and climate change. J Ecosyst Manag 14(2):1–16 Kay CE, White CA, Pengelly IR et al (1999) Long-term ecosystem states and processes in Banff National Park and the Central Canadian Rockies. National Parks: Occasional Paper No. 9, Parks Canada Klenner W, Walton R, Arsenault A et  al (2008) Dry forests in the southern interior of British Columbia: historic disturbances and implications for restoration and management. For Ecol Manag 256(10):1711–1722 Lake FK, Christianson AC (2019) Indigenous fire stewardship. In: Mazello S (ed) Encyclopedia of wildfire and wildland-urban interface (WUI) fires. Springer Nature, Cham, pp 1–9 Lipsett-Moore GJ, Wolff NH, Game ET (2018) Emissions mitigation opportunities for savanna countries from early dry season fire management. Nat Commun 9:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41467-­018-­04687-­7 Logan J, Powell J (2001) Ghost forests, global warming, and the mountain pine beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Am Entomol 47(3):160–173 Mistry J, Bilbao BA, Berardi A (2016) Community owned solutions for fire management in tropical ecosystems: case studies from Indigenous communities of South America. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 371(1696):20150174 Moura LC, Scariot AO, Schmidt IB et al (2019) The legacy of colonial fire management policies on traditional livelihoods and ecological sustainability in savannas: impacts, consequences, new directions. J Environ Manag 232:600–606 Nikolakis W, Myers Ross R (2022) Rebuilding Yunesit’in fire (Quen) stewardship: learnings from the land. For Chron 98(1):1–8 Nikolakis W, Roberts E (2020) Indigenous fire management: a conceptual model from literature. Ecol Soc 25(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-­11945-­250411 Nikolakis W, Roberts E (2021) Wildfire governance in a changing world: insights for policy learning and policy transfer. Risk Hazards Crisis Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12235 Nikolakis W, Roberts E, Hotte N et  al (2020) Goal setting and Indigenous fire management: a holistic perspective. Int J Wildland Fire 29(11):974–982 Nikolakis W, Gay V, Nygaard A (2023) The ‘environmental stewardship-health nexus’ among Indigenous peoples: a global systematic literature review. Wellbeing Space Soc 4, 100121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wss.2022.100121 Petty AM, deKoninck V, Orlove B (2015) Cleaning, protecting, or abating? Making Indigenous fire management “work” in northern Australia. J Ethnobiol 35(1):140–162 Russell-Smith J, Cook GD, Cooke PM et  al (2013) Managing fire regimes in north Australian savannas: applying Aboriginal approaches to contemporary global problems. Front Ecol Environ 11:e55–e63 Social Ventures Australia (SVA) (2016) Analysis of the current and future value of Indigenous guardian work in Canada’s northwest territories: Decho First Nations, Lutsel K’e First Nation. Indigenous Leadership Initiative, Tides Canada, Vancouver Turner NJ (1999) Time to burn: traditional use of fire to enhance resource production by aboriginal peoples in British Columbia. In: Boyd R (ed) Indians, fire and the land in the Pacific northwest. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, pp 185–218 Verhaegue C, Feltes E, Stacey J (2019) NAGWEDIẐK’AN GWANEŜ GANGU CH’INIDẐED GANEXWILAGH: the fires awakened us: Tsilhqot’in report  – 2017 wildfires. Tsilhqot’in National Government, Williams Lake

Chapter 8

Social Forestry in Indonesia: Fragmented Values, Progress, Contradictions, and Opportunities Moira Moeliono, Muhammad Alif K. Sahide, Indah Waty Bong, and Bimo Dwisatrio

8.1 Introduction Social forestry (SF), understood as any situation that intimately involves local people in a forestry activity (Arnold 1992), has a long history in Indonesia. The millions of people living in and around forests have individually or communally always used forest resources for subsistence, for cash and other purposes. As a formal government program, SF was initiated in the late 1970s, to resolve land conflicts and social discontent (Fisher et  al. 2018; Wong et  al. 2020). In 2016, the government of President Joko Widodo made SF a flagship program promising to allocate 12.7 million hectares (ha) of forest land, about 10% of the area of state forests, to be managed by local and customary communities. In Indonesia, forest land tenure is a complex and sensitive issue shaped by a colonial legacy of the state claiming control over natural resources (Peluso and Vandergeest 2001). Indonesia’s 1945 constitution declared that all land and resources are controlled by the state. The Basic Agrarian Law of 1960 reiterated this and mandated the National Land Bureau to administer all lands (including forest resources). In 1967, about 70% of this land was declared a state forest area to be managed by the Ministry of Forestry (Contreras-Hermosilla et  al. 2005; Galudra and Sirait 2009; Siscawati et  al. 2017). The separation of land into forest and M. Moeliono (*) · B. Dwisatrio Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia e-mail: [email protected] M. A. K. Sahide Forest and Society Research Group, Forestry Faculty, University of Hasanuddin, Makassar, Indonesia I. W. Bong Independent Researcher and Practitioner, Bogor, Indonesia © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 W. Nikolakis, R. Moura da Veiga (eds.), Social Value, Climate Change and Environmental Stewardship: Insights from Theory and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23145-2_8

117

118

M. Moeliono et al.

non-forests is one of the primary sources of conflicts today (Tarigan and Karuniasa 2021). Not only was there no consideration given to the existence of local and customary communities and their rights to forests and forest resources, but forest land and non-forest land area were then administered by two different ministries with different interests – leading to fragmented decisions and land uses. Forty years after it was first introduced, SF developed into a national program offering legal access to forest land and alternative forms of forest management for the betterment of forest communities. The road has been long and challenging, hampered and promoted in turn by government policies. From a period of early experimentation in the 1980s, through the turbulent time of reforms after the fall of the new order in 1998, it has developed into the current national SF program (Fisher et al. 2018). In this chapter, we focus on the different interests and values that shaped social forestry and how these have evolved. The term ‘social value’ basically describes what people consider important, worthwhile and desirable and forms the basis of cultural norms or rules of behavior (Deneulin 2011; Kenter et  al. 2015). Often, social values are considered as non-market values, translated as cultural and ecosystem services (Sherrouse et al. 2014) such as aesthetics and recreation (concepts of value in a values typology described by Tadaki et al. (2017), which also includes the value concepts of contribution to a goal, individual priorities, and relations. As humans are profoundly social and embedded into layers of complex social relationships, their actions are embedded in the wider networks of social relations and institutions in which people are historically situated (Deneulin 2011). Social value can therefore also be considered in terms of the relationships and responsibilities between people or between nature and people (Allen et al. 2018; Chan et al. 2016). As discussed, social value, is also impacted by the relationships between local people and the government. This chapter will therefore describe the current Social Forestry initiative in Indonesia, its issues and challenges including the institutional changes and how different actors played different roles in shaping and evaluating the program – which is dynamic and evolving, from social and institutional development to self-sufficient and profitable. We discuss how SF is and has been evaluated and raise the questions of ‘Where is the social in social forestry? And where the forestry is in social forestry?”

8.2 The Current SF Program in Indonesia, Issues and Challenges 8.2.1 The National SF Program SF is formally defined as: “a system of sustainable forest management implemented in state forest areas, or forest rights or customary forests implemented by local or customary communities as the main actors to improve their welfare, environmental

8  Social Forestry in Indonesia: Fragmented Values, Progress, Contradictions…

119

balance, and social cultural dynamics in the form of Village Forests, Community Forests, Community Plantation Forests, Customary Forests, and Forestry Partnerships” (Article 1, Paragraph 1 of the Ministry of the Environment and Forestry Regulation Number P.83/2016; P.9/2021). The national program of SF applies to all forest areas in Indonesia. However, as a legacy of colonial times, there is a difference between Java and the other islands. Java’s forests are largely managed by the State Forest Corporation (PERHUTANI), and the human population is much higher than in the other islands. As a result, community-PERHUTANI interactions in Java have a long history, and SF has a different character1 and thus requires a separate regulation (P.39/2017). Overall, the national program allows five main schemes (Table 8.1): village forests (Hutan Desa/HD), community forests (Hutan Kemasyarakatan/HKm), community plantations (Hutan Tanaman Rakyat/HTR), partnerships or collaborative management, and customary forest (Hutan Adat/HA). The adat2 forest scheme is the only one that involves the recognition of rights, while the other four provide limited management rights, i.e. to groups/individuals joined in a cooperative (community plantations/HTR) or community group (community forest/HKm and partnerships) or to a village institution managing the forest for the good of the whole village (village forest/HD). Three other management types exist, but are less commonly implemented: Conservation Partnership, Permits for Social Forestry (Izin Pemanfaatan Hutan Perhutanan Sosial), and the Recognition and Protection of Forestry Partnership (Pengakuan Perlindungan Kemitraan Kehutanan). The latter two are specifically designed for forests in Java. Tenurial conflict is common (Siscawati et al. 2017; Tarigan and Karuniasa 2021) and has become more visible after the reforms of 1998 (Dhiaulhaq and McCarthy 2020). Consequently, when SF was adopted as a national program in 2015, one main goal was to solve tenurial conflicts and achieve equity for local and adat communities living in or around forest areas, and thereby improve their wellbeing while retaining forests (Ministerial regulation P 83, article 2.2). The government set a target of 12.7 million ha of forest land, about 10% of the total designated state forest area, to be managed by local people. In line with the government’s vision of economic development, SF is to be managed as an enterprise. To facilitate this, SF groups have to establish entrepreneur groups or KUPS (Kelompok Usaha Perhutanan Sosial). Through these KUPS, farmers will receive training and other support to market products. Success is then

 For the history of Java’s forest see Peluso (1992, 1993) for traditions of forest control in Java.  Adat refers to cultural beliefs, rights and responsibilities, customary law and courts, customary practices and self-governance institutions. According to law, however, Adat is recognized only “as long as it is alive and can be proven” and does not question the variants and strengths of its institutions. This then became the starting point in the transformation of customary institutions into the formalization of customary forests, especially after the decision of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 35/PUU-X/2012 citing 4 conditions: namely ownership of territory, clarity of institutions, adherence to customary rules, and being politically recognized by local governments. 1 2

120

M. Moeliono et al.

Table 8.1  Social forestry schemes in Indonesia Schemes Village forests (Hutan Desa or HD)

Location State forests:  Production forests  Protection forest Both production and protection forests under Perhutani management

Community forests (Hutan Kemasyarakatan or HKm)

License Management approval (Persetujuan Pengelolaan HD) for 35 years and renewable Social forestry Forest utilization permit (IPHPS (Izin pemanfaatan hutan Perhutanan Sosial) Management approval (Persetujuan Pengelolaan HKm)

State forests:  Production forests  Protection forest  Both production and protection forests under Perhutani management Community State forests: Management plantations (Hutan  Production approval Tanaman Rakyat forests (Persetujuan or HTR) Pengelolaan HTR)

Customary forests Non-state (Hutan Adat or forests: HA)  Customary forests  Individual forests (Hutan perseorangan) People’s forests (Hutan Rakyat) Forestry State forests: partnerships  Production (Kemitraan forests Kehutanan)  Protection forests Conservation forests

Rights to use Managed by community institution such as village agency (Lembaga Desa) or Social forestry business group (Kelompok Usaha Perhutanan Sosial or KUPS) Managed by groups of local communities and cooperative; KUPS

Purpose Improve villagers’ welfare through livelihood activities: farming, collecting timber and NTFPs, and utilizing environmental services

Managed by groups of local communities and cooperative

Improve welfare through livelihood activities: farming, collecting timber and NTFPs, and utilizing environmental services Improve welfare through livelihood activities: farming, timber harvesting, collecting NTFPs, utilizing environmental services, hunting, fishing, and grazing Improve welfare through livelihood activities: farming, collecting timber and NTFPs, and utilizing environmental services

Regional government regulations on customary law communities (Masyarakat Hukum Adat or MHA)

Owned, ruled and managed by MHA

Forestry partnerships; conservation partnership

Cooperation between local communities and forest authorities (government or private)

MoEF (2021b) and Rakatama and Pandit (2020)

Improve community welfare through livelihood activities: Farming, collecting timber and NTFPs, and utilizing environmental services

8  Social Forestry in Indonesia: Fragmented Values, Progress, Contradictions…

121

evaluated based on the degree of economic development towards platinum as ultimate success (self-sufficient and profitable). By the end of 2020, 7.529 KUPS had been established of which 48 have attained platinum level (less than 1%), 480 gold and more than 50% are categorized blue or early established. More than half of SF products in 2020 were non-timber products, less than 10% wood products, and less than 1% of income was from ecotourism (goKUPS 2022a). Although the Constitutional Court Decision in 2012 confirmed constitutional adat rights, the procedural designation of HA is slow and long. A customary community only can submit an application for customary forests to MoEF after the district issues a local regulation (Peraturan Daerah or Perda) recognizing them as a customary community (Harada et al. 2022; Rahayu et al. 2020). Up to the end of 2020, some 56,842 ha was allocated to 39,371 households (MoEF 2021a), the lowest among the 5 schemes.

8.2.2 Governance and the Institutionalization of Social Forestry Local people manage forests in different ways, usually as part of the landscape that provides their livelihoods. As SF is being institutionalized as a national program under the authority of the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, there are attempts to integrate these customary systems into the state’s framework. As a national program, Social Forestry is shaped through government policy and regulations but in practice, also through the interactions of people and the state. The current government of Indonesia envisions a sustainable and green development in the country, but national goals also includes achieving middle-income status by 2045 (Bappenas 2019). Hence, improving income for the more than 30 million (BPS 2015) of people living in poverty, near or within the area designated as forest has become a priority – but balancing this goal with the local and customary systems for managing forests is complex. To administer, regulate and monitor the program, a new Directorate General (DG) of Social Forestry and Environmental Partnership (DG SF) replaced the previous directorate under the DG of Forest Rehabilitation. A special regulation (P83/2016) laying out conditions and procedures for implementation was issued and an online application system and a national-wide map for the allocation of SF schemes (Peta Indikatif Area Perhutanan Sosial or PIAPS) developed. The PIAPS is a set of 1: 250,000 scale maps that identify indicative areas of state forests for SF schemes. It is revised every six months, and shows potential areas for social forestry covering 13,462,103 ha of state forests. The PIAPS also stated that there were areas for customary forests and for community access in Conservation Forests, without specifying where they were in the maps (Resosudarmo et al. 2019).

122

M. Moeliono et al.

In 2021, the government issued a new law aimed to facilitate business development. This, so called omnibus law, necessitated the amendment of more than 70 laws and regulations, 40% of which relate to the Environmental and Forestry sectors. Consequently, the Ministry of Forestry issued several regulations replacing earlier versions, among others Government Regulation 21/2021 on forest management (PP 21/2021), followed by ministerial regulation (P 9/2021) replacing the earlier regulation on Social Forestry. The new decree was expanded from 67 articles to 200 articles, adding several special rules, among others on SF on peat soils, and on areas already converted to oil palm plantations. It changed the wording of SF as a right or permit to one of agreement and decisions, and reinforced the fact that legal access to forest areas can only be given by the Minister. Social Forestry is thus a national project implemented at local level whereby local governments are little, if at all, involved. Instead, to facilitate implementation on the ground, the different civil society interest groups were organized and later formalized into SF working groups (POKJA PS) and working groups for accelerating the SF program (POKJA PPS) at national and provincial level (Fisher et al. 2018; Resosudarmo et al. 2019; Wong et al. 2020). At the local level, the new regulations on SF allows individuals to obtain SF management agreements, depending on the scheme, but in fact, all schemes are operationalized through the formation of groups or cooperatives. It is assumed, that in remote rural areas, communities are clearly delineated and are characterized by cooperation and collaboration (Maryudi et  al. 2012). Traditionally rural people often work in groups for collaboration in communal activities, however, SF groups are often not embedded in existing institutions, but tend to be established independently for the explicit purpose of gaining SF permits. SF traditional institutions, such as swidden and adat systems are an integral part of the local landscape management, continue to exist largely invisible to or ignored by the state (Moeliono et al. 2017). When adat forest becomes part of the SF program, there is a process of alignment whereby the adat institution is changed to reflect the government image. Consequently, this institution will no longer be autonomous but becomes part of the state.

8.2.3 Actors and Institutions The definition of SF assigns local and customary communities as the principal actors to manage the social forest, either individually or as groups or as cooperatives. In practice, the government prefers to work with groups or cooperatives with individuals having to organize in groups to receive their management permit or agreement (Sahide et al. 2020). In the case of village forests, access and use rights are given to all villagers to be managed by a village institution, either an existing one (e.g. Village enterprise) or one established for this purpose. The SF regulation highlights the formation of national and provincial level working groups to help accelerate program implementation (POKJA PPS). Members of

8  Social Forestry in Indonesia: Fragmented Values, Progress, Contradictions…

123

provincial working groups consist of stakeholders having an interest in SF: technical units of forestry, local forestry agencies, the Forest Management Unit, local government, civil society, business, conservation cadres and volunteers (MoEF 2022). Although civil society is explicitly stated as consisting of academics, non-­ governmental organizations and or journalists, there is an expectation that NGOs in particular play a role in facilitating all implementation support processes. Indeed, anecdotal reports suggest that local people are dependent on outside facilitation to gain SF permits. Actors promoting SF have of course their own values, interests and ideas in promoting or implementing different forms of social forestry. In Indonesia, SF has been framed as a ‘conservation program’ promoted by conservation NGOs. Before this, SF was framed around the devolution of tenure rights to local and Indigenous peoples, and important for local empowerment by rights-based NGOs, often with support from external donors (Moeliono et al. 2015; Wong et al. 2020). Government frames SF as a development program, to improve wellbeing, but now also includes empowerment as an important goal (Moeliono et al. 2017; Wong et al. 2020). Local communities see social forestry as one way to legalize their forest use and management practices (Bong et al. 2019; Fisher et al. 2018; Maryudi et al. 2012). While local communities are designated principal  actors, MoEF, (the DG of social forestry and environmental partnership) remains the main actor administering and regulating social forestry. Within MoEF, the DG of planning, the DG of forest rehabilitation and the DG for sustainable forest management are expected to provide the necessary support. In practice, each DG has their own interest and tend to compete for control over the land and resources (Maryudi et al. 2022) that might not always be in the interest of SF. The development of the SF program cannot be separated from the role different CSOs, academics, individuals, government officials and businesses, who shared information and discussed new developments around SF. In the early 1990, these actors collectively established FKKM, forum komunikasi kehutanan masyarakat or forum for community forestry communication. Like many such organizations, it grew from donor-funded projects intended mainly to share information and examine the pros and cons of different forms of forest management in a ‘professional’ environment. However, during the reform era, FKKM took a more proactive role in reforming forest governance in general and social forestry in particular (Colchester 2003). Although its role today has been somewhat taken over by the Social Forestry Working Group of the government, it still plays an active part in discussions and development of social forestry policy and practice. Many of the same actors re-convened around the new SF program, which was institutionalized by ministerial decree as a Working group on social forestry (POKJA PS) that functions as a forum for sharing information, discussion and recruitment of facilitators. In 2019, a working group for accelerating SF (Kelompok Percepatan Perhutanan Social (POKJA PPS) was established as a focal point for SF activities in the regions (MoEF 2022). A detailed list of the actors is shown in Table 8.2. The constellation of actors in SF evolves with changing contexts and time, and is influenced by shifting social values. In the beginning, social forestry was driven by

124

M. Moeliono et al.

Table 8.2  Actors and their interests Actors National Government (Directorate General of SF and Environmental Partnership, Ministry of Environment and Forestry)

Interest Maintaining control over forest resources through providing legal access to local communities Improve livelihoods Economic development

Local communities

Right to make a living Maintaining social and cultural practices

Rights based civil society Support recognition organizations of local rights

Conservation based organizations

Conserve forest and biodiversity

Working group on SF

Support the national program Business

Private sector

State forest corporation (Perhutani)

Maintain control

Values Government has legal control over land and natural resources and the right to allocate use rights to others Communities living near and within forest need improved forest and land-based livelihoods Long term use and management of resource providesownership rights to forests

Resulting schemes National Program on SF with the 5 schemes SF enterprise and SF enterprise groups (KUPS)

Traditional management systems Community based forest systems Local communities have A high diversity rights to manage their of traditional resources and participate in management decision making processes systems Community-­ based forest systems Conservation is the main Conservation priority forest managed Local communities have in partnership local knowledge to manage Conservation and restore forest villages Variable according to the different organizations SF can be a business for Trading in SF profit products Partnerships Local communities’ Collaborative participation a necessity management in different degrees

Adapted from Fisher et al. (2018) and Wong et al. (2020)

actors involved in management of conservation areas and the state forest corporation areas. In the current program, these actors have been the most reluctant in formally accepting social forestry in the partnership programs (conservation partnership and IPHPS). PERHUTANI, which was one of the pioneers in applying SF approaches, has been especially reluctant as it sees the SF program as a threat to their control (Peluso 1992) that forces them to change business as usual management practices into a better-balanced partnership with local people (Maryudi et al. 2012).

8  Social Forestry in Indonesia: Fragmented Values, Progress, Contradictions…

125

With the emphasis on SF as enterprise, SF now attracts those actors interested in building forest-based businesses. The drive for economic development means that monetary values and valuations dominate and are the norm. So far, actors interested in building a forest business still expect public investment, but government is hoping that the private sector will invest. This emphasis on business is pushing actors valuing conservation or human rights to work within an economic frame to provide benefits to local communities.

8.2.4 Issues and Challenges The official SF website reports that more than 4.9 million ha of forest-land has been allocated to more than 1 million local households in the form of 7494 management agreements and some 8154 KUPS (MoEF 2021a). While this achievement is not insignificant, it is still below the 12.7 million ha in SF target set by the government in 2016. Five key issues and challenges including (i) legal and bureaucratic complexity; (ii) unrealistic expectations for social forestry; (iii) hollow groups and communality; (iv) financing SF and village governance; and (v) responsibilization and territorialization in the SF program are discussed below. 8.2.4.1 Legal and Bureaucratic Complexity: More than Forestry Policy and the Need for Intermediaries The SF program aims to provide legal access to state forest land for local communities, for a range of goals. The highly centralized framework necessitates the bridging of large distances, geographically, as well as administratively and socio-culturally, particularly in the organization of the bureaucracy itself, where within the MoEF responsibilities for the SF program is split up among the DGs responsible for managing the state forest areas (Fisher et al. 2018; Maryudi et al. 2022; Resosudarmo et al. 2019). Local communities are also tied within bureaucratic rules of other sectors such as the regional government and its division. This complex bureaucracy and often difficult to apply, technical rules mean that local people need and are indeed required to work with intermediaries or facilitators (pendamping)for planning, permit application as well as in developing and implementing their business plan (Rencana Kerja Usaha (RKU) (MoEF 2019, 2021b). Even where no business is planned, local people need facilitators to manage their area in accordance to the SF scheme and zoning the forest area falls into (see Fig. 8.1). As shown by a study of SF in 14 sub-districts in South Sulawesi, 95% of 391 permits granted were facilitated by external actors (Sahide et al. 2018). Approximately 36% of the 8154 KUPS are still lack facilitators (MoEF 2021a). Up to 2019, there were 2712 forestry extension workers who provided technical forestry advice to villagers and communities, half of which were located in Java and the rest were distributed across 29 provinces. Inadequate number and unequal distribution of extension workers is hindering the ability of extension professionals to

126

M. Moeliono et al.

Fig. 8.1  Availability of facilitation by Social Forestry Schemes. (goKUPS 2022a, b)

act as intermediaries for SF, slowing the implementation of SF across Indonesia. Galudra (2019) observed that there is also a need of appropriate training for forestry extension works, who often lack basic facilitation skills, and there is no overall strategy to improve the capacities and skills of SF facilitators and extension workers (Galudra 2019). Most facilitation was limited to permit application; only about 5% of KUPS received broader assistance from permit application to market development (Sahide et al. 2018). To overcome the shortage of manpower and skills, the DG of SF appealed to NGOs active in the SF space to contribute to the effort of training extension works. Local as well as nation-wide NGOs have stepped up to support forest extension workers in fulfilling their intermediary role, but some challenges remain in terms of coverage and technical capacity. Local NGOs do not all have sufficient capacity or funding. 8.2.4.2 Too High Expectations: What Is Success for Social Forestry? The SF regulation requires government to conduct a comprehensive evaluation every 5 years although the Minister in 2017 called for more intensive evaluation (MoEF 2017). A framework to evaluate the SF program, is attached to P 9/2021

8  Social Forestry in Indonesia: Fragmented Values, Progress, Contradictions…

127

(Attachment XXVIII), listing criteria and indicators as well as the means of verification for each of four aspects: • Administration: presence and completeness of all required documents. • Production/Economical: improved forest governance, increased income and improved wellbeing of people living in and around forest areas. • Ecological: forests maintained  or improved in accordance with its function and status. • Socially: level of empowerment of local people to use and manage forests in a sustainable manner as well as gender equity and level of local participation. The government mandated several NGOs and consultants to conduct evaluations per region. Results from Maluku and Papua shows that in terms of social outcomes, the impact is limited to acquired knowledge on legal information related to access rights on uses of forest land (Kastanya et al. 2019). In South Sulawesi, the assessment shows that SF has not been able to fulfill all aspects simultaneously but has been more successful on social aspects (Sahide et al. 2018). Yet, most reports highlight the number of permits/agreements issued, the area allocated, the absence or presence of management plans, the number of groups formed, and the success of economic activities as measurements of success. Forest conditions and social equity aspects in assessments of the program is less reported (Bong et al. 2019) although several scholarly articles focus on these aspects. Santika et al. (2019) and Kraus et al. (2021) show variable results on how SF affects forest cover or reduces deforestation, and both reiterate the need for more research around ecological effects. Social aspects evaluated in practice are focused on the number of forest farmers group members participating in SF efforts but lack consideration for how participation might or might not determine the success of the particular schemes (Kastanya et al. 2019; Sahide et al. 2018). Meijaard et al. (2021) document that social and institutional impacts are the most commonly evaluated aspects of SF, especially in comparison to financial and environmental aspects. Unfortunately, these evaluations show poor performance of social aspects based on indicators of forest users’ empowerment, specifically access to information, community participation in decision-making, and elite capture. Conversely, SF is shown to be successful when the permit holders collectively decide to adjust the rules to their benefit (Sahide et al. 2018). For example, in one community rules on the proportion of timber trees were changed from 70% to 30% with the remainder in multiple use crops. This new rule then became the new norm in the area with important livelihood outcomes for community members. Although the DG SF official website highlights production (goKUPS 2022b), a study of Ragandhi et  al. (2021) in the Ngawi district, shows that the promise of financial gains for local communities from securing IPHPS permits and utilizing forests to obtain benefits from these rights is difficult to materialize on the ground. IPHPS is a 35-year permit scheme uniquely for Java Island’s forests managed by the State Forest Corporation. Ragandhi and colleagues found that the policy arrangements created a burden for poor farmers caused by the requirements to invest in

128

M. Moeliono et al.

reforestation and payments for annual land taxes and taxes on harvests. Without sufficient income from seasonal crops and access to investment capital, the promise of financial benefit from having permits falls short of expectations. This case shows that communities pay, but benefit less than expected. Regardless of different interests, stakeholders perceive SF as a way to devolve forest management to local communities, thus recognizing local people’s rights to access and manage forests. Reconciliation of these interests is still a challenge though, particularly at the community level, among forest users. Around 14% of the groups identified tenurial conflicts, mostly between communities and the state or industry, and put efforts to resolve these conflicts independently, and 24% sought help from external actors. Usually NGOs. The majority were unable to effectively manage existing conflicts, and left land unused (Dhiaulhaq and McCarthy 2020). Rakatama and Pandit (2020) highlighted how SF possesses both opportunities to mitigate conflict and risks increasing conflict related to forest and forest land uses. 8.2.4.3 Hollow Groups and How Communal Is SF? The decree on Social Forestry emphasizes the need for the applicant to organize in collectives. While SF permits or agreements can be assigned to individuals, groups or cooperatives, depending on the particular scheme, in its implementation, individuals have to be part of a group, and the group will manage the forest in accordance to a management plan. Traditionally, local people across Indonesia organized in groups for particular actions or needs, and these are often well established and involve clear roles and task divisions. When a new action is introduced, such as SF, often, new groups are formed or new organizational forms are introduced such as cooperatives or village enterprises depending on the issue, risking the marginalization of the existing groups (Sahide et al. 2020). Often, groups are formed in haste without too much consultation for the sake of fulfilling the target of getting a SF allocation. There are cases, where members do not even know they are part of a SF group, a ‘hollow group’ (Fisher et al. 2018; Moeliono et al. 2015). Success is then assessed on the number of groups formed, rather than collective action achieved  – quantity over quality of SF. As Race et al. (2009) assert, participation alone is insufficient to guarantee the success of the enterprise where smallholders might not fully understand commercial markets. SF agreements or permits are allocated to forest user groups, farmer groups, cooperatives, small enterprise entities (among others) that then are required to establish a Social Forestry Business Group (Kelompok Usaha Perhutanan Social-­ KUPS). Problems arise when the permit holding group is different from the KUPS.  As well, not all individuals in the group might be interested in doing business. Furthermore, while local people might often work in groups, and rights to a forest or landscape might be communal, most people’s actions related to livelihoods are to fulfill individual needs (Moeliono et al. 2017). Social forestry is social in that

8  Social Forestry in Indonesia: Fragmented Values, Progress, Contradictions…

129

it concerns communal interests, but when developed for commercial purposes, the social tends to get lost in favor of individual profits. Although the term ‘social enterprise’ is used, the concept is not well understood. There is little discussion on benefits sharing. Thus, while SF provides a legal foundation for local people to manage forests (gaining relative tenure security) it does require adjustments to local institutions and safeguards against marginalization within the community itself. 8.2.4.4 Who Pays? Financing SF and Village Governance As a national program, SF is paid for by the national budget, the largest part of which is used to fund management support activities, which reaches 39.8% per year. Social forest and customary forest business development activities uses 32.4% of the budget, activities for preparing social forestry areas 17.9%, activities for handling tenure and customary forest conflicts 5.3%, and environmental partnership activities and community participation by 4.7% (Zakaria et al. 2018). As said, there is a great push to develop SF into smallholder enterprises. KUPS can develop business activities that include use of forest land, ecosystem services, and timber and non-timber forest products. Where it is possible to develop a forestry business, the groups still need funding for initiation and help in both timber and non-timber product marketing. Up to 2019, about 37% of KUPS had business plans (Rencana Kerja Usaha, RKU) that would allow them to access capital and develop markets. There are at least three options of finance: Village Fund (Dana Desa), bank credit, and Bangpesona (Bantuan Pengembangan Perhutanan Sosial Nusantara) grants. Village Funds are regulated by the Village Law 6/2014 and Government Regulation 60/2014, with the priority uses and types of activities to be funded regulated by the Ministry of Villages, Development of Disadvantaged Regions, and Transmigration. Although community empowerment activities such as establishment and development of village-owned enterprises are allowed, most village funds are used for infrastructure development. Subsequent regulations (Permendes No. 5/2015, Permendes 21/2015, Permendes 22/2016, and Permendes 19/2017) allow wider use for livelihoods and environment purposes (reforestation and rehabilitation of peatland and mangrove). The distribution of Village Fund marks a significant increase in village budget funding, straining the capacity of the village financial management system. The public financial management procedure (tata kelola keuangan negara) is particularly inadequate at the village level and coupled with insufficient regulatory controls and accountability, may well cause the increased number of corruption cases (Media Indonesia 2020). Limited community participation in the planning and monitoring of the village fund and politicization through its use during village election periods, further contributes to rampant corruption (Irfan 2017; The Jakarta Post 2017). Although Dana Desa is one possible source of funding for SF, SF development is still not well integrated yet into the village development planning process. As most of the forest areas under SF are state forests, village governments do not include it into village planning, as the areas are not under the village purview.

130

M. Moeliono et al.

The small business credit (Kredit Usaha Rakyat, KUR) with low interest rates is less accessible for most KUPS located outside Java and Bali. One of the requirements to access KUR is that the KUPS needs commitment from off-takers (penjamin/pembeli siaga), a private sector or state-owned enterprise that can provide collateral, act as buyers, or secure buyers for the products to be sold from the SF. KUPS may also access grants from the MOEF Social Forestry Development Management Program (Bantuan Pengembangan Perhutanan Sosial Nusantara, Bang Pesona) (MoEF 2019) up to 50 million IDR for cultivation activities (provision of goods, seedlings, livestock, fish) and 100 million IDR for production equipment (MoEF 2020, 2022). The availability of the funding is limited though. The government invited NGOs to fill this gap by directly supporting KUPS. One other opportunity to generate income in SF areas is through REDD+ (Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks), a United Nations program that creates incentive mechanisms for communities who are practicing social forestry practices to mitigate climate change through reforestation, afforestation and conservation activities. In 2020, Indonesia developed the REDD+ Results-Based Payment (RBP) with payments from the Green Climate Fund (GCF), who approved USD $103.8 million for emission reduction (20.3-million-ton tCO2eq) results period 2014–2016. The payment is managed by United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Indonesia, as an accredited entity and the Indonesian Environmental Fund (IEF or Badan Pengelola Dana Lingkungan Hidup – BPDLH) and national designated authority GCF secretariat in Indonesia. The funds are to be allocated to (i) improve coordination mechanism, implementation, and architecture of REDD+, (ii) support decentralized sustainable forest management by Forest Management Unit (FMUs) and Village forests, and (iii) institutional support (MoFin 2020). Social forestry is part of 13 priority program of BPDLH and categorized under REDD+ framework which are eligible to receive REDD+ funds. This opportunity may boost social forestry license holders to access more funding in the future, although at present it is not easy. To mitigate the risks and ensure compliance with environmental and social safeguards, during the implementation of GCF’s performance-­based payments, a plan for environmental and social management is to be prepared carefully by the Fiscal Policy Agency (Badan Kebijakan Fiskal or BKF under the Ministry of Finance) as the National Designated Authority in collaboration with other stakeholders. Thus, while the architecture of financing social forestry is available, the implementation remains blurry mainly around who will benefit. Beneficiaries range from customary law communities, registered communities in government, government agencies, NGOs, private sector and research/education agencies. The most problematic but also one of the most important beneficiaries are Adat communities as explained earlier.

8  Social Forestry in Indonesia: Fragmented Values, Progress, Contradictions…

131

8.2.4.5 Responsibilization and Territorialization: In Whose Interest Is the SF Program? The spirit of SF has always been that forests should be managed for the people by the people. Ideally, therefore, SF should be about devolution of rights to local users of the forest. Yet, institutional stickiness and attachment to power has made full devolution of forests an elusive dream (Maryudi et al. 2022; Moeliono et al. 2017). Actors in power tend to be reluctant to give up management power and the benefits to be gained from forests (Adiwibowo et  al. 2016; Dahal and Capistrano 2006; Edmunds and Wollenberg 2013; Moeliono et  al. 2017; Schusser et  al. 2015; Sunderlin 2006). SF in Indonesia thus, appears more a contestation over control than a program in the interests of local peoples whereby  the various actors continue  claiming or reclaiming rights over resources. Adding to the complexity are processes of decentralization started with the reforms in 1999, and the almost immediate processes of recentralization, especially in the forest sector; and between processes of gaining access and exercising access (Budi et al. 2021; Maryudi et al. 2022; Moeliono et al. 2017). The national SF program adopted the idea that traditional practices of forest management are a communal effort; but the allocation of rights to certain groups often disrupt local governance structures, including the link between communal and individual rights, and strategies of local forest governance and management. SF is  strongly regulated by the Ministry whereby permits or agreements have to be approved by the minister. Although in practice much is delegated to the provincial level, local communities have little autonomy to decide how to manage the forest. However, SF agreements come with associated responsibilities: to manage the forest in accordance with complicated technical requirements including forest protection and rehabilitation often beyond the capabilities of local peoples. SF might be more  a responsibilization  process (Erbaugh 2019), shifting the responsibility of managing forest to local communities, thus more a social cost than a benefit (de Royer et al. 2018). Local communities might therefore reject these programs, either because they are not interested in managing forest or because it does not recognize their historical rights (Moeliono et al. 2015). Importantly, the SF initiative represents a divide in how social value derived from forests is perceived, and how it is measured in practice. The SF schemes introduced, HD, HKm and HTR, are also not well adapted to the local or adat arrangements, leading to exclusion of some clans from their forests (Kastanya et al. 2019). Such formalization of local and customary or adat practices, as formal SF schemes, can strengthen collaboration between state and communities (Sahide et  al. 2018) and improve tenure security when local people are involved early on and the process takes into consideration the existing local management and institutions (Jenke and Pretzsch 2021) and livelihood needs (Larson et  al. 2019; Riggs et  al. 2016). Conversely, strengthening of legal standing for existing local institutions might not be of interest for some community groups, such as women in a strong patriarchal community and lower caste groups as it furthers inequality and elite capture (de Royer et al. 2018; Moeliono et al. 2017).

132

M. Moeliono et al.

8.3 Changing Relations, Changing Values Social value is rooted in cultural norms or rules of behavior, and might be simply understood as what people consider important, worthwhile and desirable to maintain and enhance their wellbeing (Giddens 1984). Social value might apply to a particular community or to society, but can also be used to refer to the public interest and values for public goods (Kenter et al. 2015). As humans are profoundly social, and embedded into layers of complex social relationships, their actions are embedded in the wider networks of social relations and institutions in which people are historically constituted (Deneulin 2011), thus social value is produced and reproduced in social contexts. Indonesia is very diverse, with 300 culturally different ethnic groups speaking distinct languages across the nation. Each of these ethnicities have their own set of social values that are subject to change in accordance to changing perceptions of what is important (Allen et  al. 2018; Chan et  al. 2016), for example, traditional beliefs and knowledge systems, forest and tree symbolism, nature-related social taboos such as sacred sites, and sense of place shape the values which contribute to biodiversity and ecosystem conservation (Colding and Folke 2001; Gadgil et  al. 1993; Luo et al. 2009; Uyeda et al. 2016; Wadley and Colfer 2004; Williams and Stewart 1998; Yuliani et al. 2018). Often, social value is considered through the lens of non-market values (Sherrouse et al. 2014) such as aesthetics and recreation values (concepts of value in a values typology described by Tadaki et al. (2017), which also includes the value concepts of contribution to a goal, individual priorities, and relations (Tadaki et  al. 2017). Yet, with an emphasis on business development, these non-market values tend to be forgotten. The Indonesia SF program, while stating local communities as principal actors, driven by and based on values of the government with its emphasis on administrative and legal requirements, where structure becomes more important than function. Indeed, as said, it is more about maintaining control over forests and its benefit and externalizing some of the costs of managing forests and promoting regional development. Local communities values are not considered and there is no process of free, prior and informed consent nor the freedom to choose alternative schemes. The state governs and administers forestlands; and imposes a “state” value on forestry operations including social forestry. SF is part of this centralized power setting and has become a tool for recentralization of the state in terms of regulating community access systems for the use of natural resources. Rules are numerous and fragmented when it comes to planning, management, and evaluation, and the state is a beneficiary of this. State agents also tend to acquire a range of regulations that only serve to increase information dominance, which elevates state agents to the position of primary information sources – deepening the power divide. For local communities, the link with land that is utilized as a social forestry area, is much more important, including whether or not the land is part of their traditional territory and cultural values, and whether the land is needed for other uses. Where land is recognized as state forest area, state forestry agencies are seen as important to grant access to forest and gain rights (and responsibility) to manage the forest.

8  Social Forestry in Indonesia: Fragmented Values, Progress, Contradictions…

133

As said, Indonesia is a large and diverse country and local values are seldom considered in designating SF. The interaction of government and people with regard to SF could lead to several scenarios: 1. SF program survives as permits but is institutionally hollow. An assessment of SF in South Sulawesi found that, according to the MoEF’s own standards and indicators, roughly 80% of SF agreements that have been operational for more than 5 years might fail (Sahide et al. 2018) with the HTR scheme (people forest plantation) the least successful. HTR, which was introduced in the second generation of SF, should potentially be most successful as it is already a community timber business; whereas other schemes focus on non-timber forest products, often not even forest related. One main issue is that people who acquire permits are not local people or even those requesting permits. HTR requires planting and only timber plants grown by farmers can be harvested. This implies the need for capital and less land for other crops, that local people cannot afford. According to the PIAPS, forest allocated to 62,716 people allows 6.27  ha person although in practice one person managed 2.47 ha on average. For local people, integrating community tenure institutions as part of SF was more significant than the size of the area. 2. Against formal SF Value: “new commons”. The rigid rules of SF are often not practical in the field. The formal bureaucracy of the SF service, which is heavily centralized and packed with ongoing individualization of land and distrust of forestry institution, has been unable to match the institutional ability of local communities. In practice, as shown, farmers take the initiative and adjust the prescribed system to their needs and customs. In South Sulawesi one such adjusted system showed a viable sylvo-pasture system of 70% cashew, 30% teak and cattle. Though the rule says that there should be 70% timber trees and cattle is not allowed, this case shows how forestry staff condone a situation until it cannot be reversed anymore (Herrawan et al. 2022; Sahide et al. 2020). Clearly, farmers are able to intensively manage a forest area and creating new commons for group members. New institutions have emerged benefitting local people based on their own aspiration. Interestingly, such success results from a rejection of formal rules and replacing them with more adaptive rules. 3. The role of non-government agents in SF: bringing new value. Overall, about 20% of SF schemes fulfilling all evaluation criteria, involve facilitation from NGOs, often with international funding (Sahide et al. 2018). Many of these NGOs introduced new values such as equity, including of gender that they actively promote as part of the SF activities. Adopting SF means accepting these values. Involvement of NGOs in facilitation and empowering SF managers have also resulted in new institutions incorporating the new values. The advantage of NGOs is that they are directly working in the field and better understand local contexts in implementing SF agreements. Although NGOs are necessarily oper-

134

M. Moeliono et al.

ating within the legal framework set by government, they are more willing and able to modify restrictive rules and adapt them as needed. The role of NGOs in facilitating SF is recognized by government and thus far the government through the DG SF has provided sufficient space for NGO activities and involves NGO in various fora, both nationally and regionally. On the other hand, there have also been attempts to control, formalize NGOs (Galudra and Sirait 2009) and bureaucratize (Laraswati et  al. 2022; Rahayu et  al. 2020) and responsibilize NGOs by shifting responsibility for facilitation and funding to willing NGOs. 4. Contested formal value among schemes. As a main intermediary, NGOs also have great influence in determining the choice of schemes to request. In this regard, customary forests or HA (hutan adat) are unique in the SF regulation. Since 2012, HA implies the community has full ownership rights over the forest and resources rather than the limited rights of access, use or management of the other schemes. Yet, with legal ownership to be devolved, HA is the most constrained by complicated regulations and competing interests of powerful actors. As a result, some actors opt for Village Forest (HD) or HKM. This might result in conflict within a community like that in Enrekang, South Sulawesi. Although regulations distinguish between the different schemes, for local people there is not much difference in implementation. Community forest (HKM) or village forest (Hutan Desa) are managed the same, often individually. Often there is also no clear difference between village forest and customary forest in how they manage it. Yet, NGOs might inadvertently cause conflict by promoting different schemes in the same community.

8.4 Concluding Remarks The Social Forestry Program in Indonesia is shaped by an interplay of historic processes and the involvement of many actors promoting different interests based on different social values. Although aiming to overcome the problem of land tenure, SF has often become a technical and administrative exercise whereby social, environmental and cultural values are considered less and less. Typically, success is measured based on quantitative measures of area designated and groups established, and not around what communities determine to be their priorities, or social value. In the process one can ask, in whose interest SF really is. Assessments thus far show uncertain results in terms of increased income, environmental sustainability and social-cultural stability. On the other hand, SF strengthens the role of the national government in maintaining control over the forest and forest land while shifting responsibility for governance at least partly to local people and NGOs. Yet, it is also the only available opportunity for local people to gain some level of legal access to forests, and in the case of adat, legal ownership over forest resources. It does not really come cheap. With acceptance can come social costs, clashing values, elite capture and marginalization of tradition.

8  Social Forestry in Indonesia: Fragmented Values, Progress, Contradictions…

135

Thus a clearer vision on successful SF is needed based on a negotiated arrangement considering the different values among the actors.

References Adiwibowo S, Shohibuddin M, Kartodihardjo H (2016) Contested devolution: the political ecology of community-based forest management in Indonesia. Abstract presented at Green Governance Conference. Universiy of California, Berkeley Allen KE, Quinn CE, English C et al (2018) Relational values in agroecosystem governance. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 35:108–115 Arnold J (1992) Community forestry: ten years in review, revised edn. [FAO] Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome Badan Pusat Statistik [BPS] (trans: Central Bureau of Statistics) (2015) Analisis rumah tangga sekitar kawasan hutan di Indonesia. Central Agency of Statistics, Government of Indonesia, Jakarta [Bappenas] Kementerian Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional Republik Indonesia/Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (trans: Ministry of National Development Planning of the Republic of Indonesia) (2019) Ringkasan Eksekutif Visi Indonesia 2045 (trans: executive summary Indonesia vision 2045). National Development Planning Agency, Government of Indonesia, Jakarta Bong IW, Moeliono M, Wong GY et al (2019) What is success? Gaps and trade-offs in assessing the performance of traditional social forestry systems in Indonesia. For Soc 3(1):1–21 Budi B, Kartodihardjo H, Nugroho B et  al (2021) Implementation of social forestry policy: a review of community access. For Soc 5(1):60–74 Chan KM, Balvanera P, Benessaiah K et al (2016) Opinion: why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. PNAS 113(6):1462–1465 Colchester M (2003) Bridging the gap: challenges to community forestry networking in Indonesia. Learning from International Community Forestry Networks. https://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/cf/indonesia_cf.pdf. Accessed 25 Aug 2022 Colding J, Folke C (2001) Social taboos: “invisible” systems of local resource management and biological conservation. Ecol Appl 11(2):584–600 Contreras-Hermosilla A, Fay C, Effendi E (2005) Strengthening forest management in Indonesia through land tenure reform: issues and framework for action. Forest Trends, Washington, DC Dahal G, Capistrano D (2006) Forest governance and institutional structure: an ignored dimension of community based forest management in the Philippines. Int For Rev 8(4):377–394 de Royer S, Van Noordwijk M, Roshetko J (2018) Does community-based forest management in Indonesia devolve social justice or social costs? Int For Rev 20(2):167–180 Deneulin S (2011) Advancing human development: values, groups, power and conflict. In: FitzGerald V, Heyer J, Thorp R (eds) Overcoming the persistence of inequality and poverty. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 127–148 Dhiaulhaq A, McCarthy JF (2020) Indigenous rights and agrarian justice framings in forest land conflicts in Indonesia. Asia Pacific J Anthropol 21(1):34–54 Edmunds DS, Wollenberg EK (eds) (2013) Local forest management: the impacts of devolution policies. Routledge, London Erbaugh JT (2019) Responsibilization and social forestry in Indonesia. For Policy Econ 109:102019 Fisher MR, Moeliono M, Mulyana A et  al (2018) Assessing the new social forestry project in Indonesia: recognition, livelihood and conservation? Int For Rev 20(3):346–361 Gadgil M, Berkes F, Folke C (1993) Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22(2/3):151–156 Galudra G (2019) Focusing on facilitation: issues and challenges of capacity development in Indonesia’s social forestry reforms. For Soc 3(1):133–136

136

M. Moeliono et al.

Galudra G, Sirait M (2009) A discourse on Dutch colonial forest policy and science in Indonesia at the beginning of the 20th century. Int For Rev 11(4):524–533 Giddens A (1984) The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. University of California Press, Berkeley goKUPS (2022a) Analisis produksi kelompok usaha perhutanan sosial berdasarkan jenis komoditas. http://sinav.usahahutan.id/index.php/frontend/analisa/produksiusaha. Accessed 26 Aug 2022 goKUPS (2022b) Analisis ketersediaan pendamping berdasarkan skema perhutanan sosial. http:// sinav.usahahutan.id/index.php/frontend/analisa/pendampingan. Accessed 10 Apr 2022 Harada K, Habib M, Sakata Y (2022) The role of NGOs in recognition and sustainable maintenance of customary forests within indigenous communities: the case of Kerinci. Indonesia Land Use Policy 113:105865 Herrawan H, Sirimorok N, Nursaputra M et  al (2022) Commoning the state Forest: crafting commons through an Indonesian social forestry program. For Soc 6(1):20–39. https://doi. org/10.24259/fs.v6i1.10680 Irfan M (2017) Korupsi Dana Desa Kebanyakan Didalangi Kepala Desa (trans: Village heads behind most village fund corruption. https://www.pikiran-­rakyat.com/nasional/pr-­01284442/ korupsi-­dana-­desa-­kebanyakan-­didalangi-­kepala-­desa-­407195. Accessed 11 April 2022 Jenke M, Pretzsch J (2021) The impact of community forest formalisation on tenure security and co-management in Thailand. Int For Rev 23(1):29–40 Kastanya IA, Tjoa M, Mardiatmoko G et  al (2019) Kajian dampak perhutanan sosial wilayah Maluku-Papua (trans: Assessment of the impact of social forestry in the Maluku-Papua region). [UNPATTI] University of Pattimura, Ambon Kenter JO, O’Brien L, Hockley N et al (2015) What are shared and social values of ecosystems? Ecol Econ 111:86–99 Kraus S, Liu J, Koch N et al (2021) No aggregate deforestation reductions from rollout of community land titles in Indonesia yet. PNAS 118(43):e2100741118 Laraswati D, Krott M, Soraya E et al (2022) Nongovernmental organizations as interest groups and their roles in policy processes: insights from Indonesian forest and environmental governance. For Soc 6(2):570–589. https://doi.org/10.24259/fs.v6i2.19125 Larson AM, Monterroso I, Liswanti N et al (2019) Models for formalizing customary and community forest lands: the need to integrate livelihoods into rights and forest conservation goals. [CIFOR] Center for International Forestry Research. Bogor, Indonesia Luo Y, Liu J, Zhang D (2009) Role of traditional beliefs of Baima Tibetans in biodiversity conservation in China. For Ecol Manag 257(10):1995–2001 Maryudi A, Devkota RR, Schusser C et al (2012) Back to basics: considerations in evaluating the outcomes of community forestry. For Policy Econ 14(1):1–5 Maryudi A, Sahide MAK, Daulay MH et al (2022) Holding social forestry hostage in Indonesia: contested bureaucracy mandates and potential escape pathways. Environ Sci Pol 128:142–153 Media Indonesia (2020) BNNP: 473 Kades telah terserat korupsi dana desa (trans: BNNP: 473 Village heads were processed for alleged corruption of village fund). https://mediaindonesia. com/politik-­dan-­hukum/292266/bnnp-­473-­kades-­telah-­terseret-­korupsi-­dana-­desa. Accessed 11 Apr 2022 Meijaard E, Santika T, Wilson KA (2021) Toward improved impact evaluation of community forest management in Indonesia. Conserv Sci Pract 3(1):e189 Ministry of Environment and Forestry Republic of Indonesia [MoEF] (2017) Evaluasi perhutanan sosial dilakukan intensif (trans: Evaluation of social forestry is carried out intensively). http:// pskl.menlhk.go.id/berita/223-­evaluasi-­perhutanan-­sosial-­dilakukan-­intensif.html. Accessed 25 Aug 2022 Ministry of Environment and Forestry Republic of Indonesia [MoEF] (2019) Petunjuk Teknis Pelaksanaan Penyaluran Pemberian Bantuan Pemerintah Untuk program Perhutanan Sosial and Kemitraan Lingkungan (trans: technical guideline for the implementation of distribution of

8  Social Forestry in Indonesia: Fragmented Values, Progress, Contradictions…

137

government assistance for social forestry and environmental partnership programs). Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Government of Indonesia, Jakarta Ministry of Environment and Forestry Republic of Indonesia [MoEF] (2020) The state of Indonesia's forests 2020. Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Government of Indonesia, Jakarta Ministry of Environment and Forestry Republic of Indonesia [MoEF] (2021a) Laporan Kinerja 2020 Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan (trans: Performance report 2020, Ministry of Environment and forestry). Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Government of Indonesia, Jakarta Ministry of Environment and Forestry Republic of Indonesia [MoEF] (2021b) Pengelolaan Perhutanan Sosial (trans: Management of Social Forestry). Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Government of Indonesia, Jakarta Ministry of Environment and Forestry Republic of Indonesia [MoEF] (2022) Indonesia's operational plan FOLU net sink 2030. Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Government of Indonesia, Jakarta Ministry of Finance Republic of Indonesia [MoFin] (2020) Indonesia makin dipercaya: Green Climate Fund setujui REDD+ Results-Based Payment USD 103.8 juta. https://fiskal.kemenkeu.go.id/nda_gcf/publikasi/indonesia-­makin-­dipercaya-­green-­climate-­fund-­setujui-­redd-­ results-­based-­payment-­usd-­103-­8-­juta. Accessed 25 Aug 2022 Moeliono M, Mulyana A, Adnan H et al (2015) A permit is not enough: community forests (HKM) in Bulukumba. Agroforestry and forestry in Sulawesi (AgFor Sulawesi) series. Brief No. 49. World Agroforestry Centre Moeliono M, Thuy PT, Bong IW et al (2017) Social forestry – why and for whom? A comparison of policies in Vietnam and Indonesia. For Soc 1(2):78–97 Peluso NL (1992) Rich forests, poor people. Rich forests, poor people. University of California Press, Berkeley Peluso NL (1993) ‘Traditions’ of forest control in Java: implications for social forestry and sustainability. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 3:138–157 Peluso NL, Vandergeest P (2001) Genealogies of the political forest and customary rights in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. J Asian Stud 60(3):761–812 Race D, Bisjoe A, Hakim R et al (2009) Partnerships for involving small-scale growers in commercial forestry: lessons from Australia and Indonesia. Int For Rev 11(1):88–97 Ragandhi A, Hadna AH, Setiadi S et al (2021) Why do greater forest tenure rights not enthuse local communities? An early observation on the new community forestry scheme in state forests in Indonesia. For Soc 5(1):159–166 Rahayu S, Laraswati D, Pratama AA et al (2020) Bureaucratizing non-government organizations as governmental forest extension services in social forestry policy in Indonesia. For Trees Livelihoods 29(2):119–129 Rakatama A, Pandit R (2020) Reviewing social forestry schemes in Indonesia: opportunities and challenges. For Policy Econ 111:102052 Resosudarmo IAP, Tacconi L, Sloan S et al (2019) Indonesia's land reform: implications for local livelihoods and climate change. For Policy Econ 108:101903 Riggs RA, Sayer J, Margules C et  al (2016) Forest tenure and conflict in Indonesia: contested rights in Rempek Village, Lombok. Land Use Policy 57:241–249 Sahide MAK, Jusuf Y, Alam S et al (2018) Kajian dampak perhutanan sosial Provinsi Sulawesi Selatan (trans: Study of the impact of social forestry of South Sulawesi Province). University of Hasanuddin, Makassar Sahide MAK, Fisher MR, Erbaugh J et al (2020) The boom of social forestry policy and the bust of social forests in Indonesia: developing and applying an access-exclusion framework to assess policy outcomes. For Policy Econ 120:102290 Santika T, Wilson KA, Budiharta S et al (2019) Heterogeneous impacts of community forestry on forest conservation and poverty alleviation: evidence from Indonesia. People Nat 1(2):204–219 Schusser C, Krott M, Movuh MCY et al (2015) Powerful stakeholders as drivers of community forestry—results of an international study. For Policy Econ 58:92–101

138

M. Moeliono et al.

Sherrouse BC, Semmens DJ, Clement JM (2014) An application of social values for ecosystem services (SolVES) to three national forests in Colorado and Wyoming. Ecol Indic 36:68–79 Siscawati M, Banjade MR, Liswanti N et al (2017) Overview of forest tenure reforms in Indonesia. Working Paper 223. [CIFOR] Center for International Forestry Research Sunderlin WD (2006) Poverty alleviation through community forestry in Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam: an assessment of the potential. For Policy Econ 8(4):386–396 Tadaki M, Sinner J, Chan KM (2017) Making sense of environmental values: a typology of concepts. Ecol Soc 22(1):7 Tarigan AP, Karuniasa M (2021) Analysis of agrarian conflict resolution through social forestry scheme. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 716(1):012082 The Jakarta Post (2017) Rampant corruption in villages caused by incompetence: ICW. https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2017/02/19/rampant-­corruption-­in-­villages-­ caused-­by-­incompetence-­icw.html. Accessed 10 Apr 2022 Uyeda LT, Iskandar E, Purbatrapsila A (2016) The role of traditional beliefs in conservation of herpetofauna in Banten. Indonesia Oryx 50(2):296–301 Wadley RL, Colfer CJP (2004) Sacred forest, hunting, and conservation in West Kalimantan. Indonesia Hum Ecol 32(3):313–338 Williams DR, Stewart SI (1998) Sense of place: an elusive concept that is finding a home in ecosystem management. J Forestry 96(5):18–23 Wong GY, Moeliono M, Bong IW et al (2020) Social forestry in Southeast Asia: evolving interests, discourses and the many notions of equity. Geoforum 117:246–258 Yuliani EL, Adnan H, Achdiawan R et  al (2018) The roles of traditional knowledge systems in orang-utan Pongo spp. and forest conservation: a case study of Danau Sentarum, West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Oryx 52(1):156–165 Zakaria RY, Wiyono E, Firdaus A et al (2018) Perhutanan sosial: Dari slogan menjadi program. Naskah akademik reformulasi kebijakan Perhutanan Sosial (trans: Social Forestry: From a slogan to a program. Academic paper on social forestry policy reformulation). Secretariat of Agrarian Reform and Social Forestry, Jakarta

Chapter 9

Final Conclusions – Social Value and Measuring It: Challenges, Opportunities, and Future Directions William Nikolakis

9.1 Social Value: Promise and Realities The collection of chapters in this book, bring insight to the evolution and application of social value and its measurement. Richards in his chapter (Richards 2023) argues that we, as humans on this planet, are on a ‘precipice’ and there is a pressing need to broaden how we account for and report on ‘value’; and, also critical is a consistent set of metrics and standards, which can verify impact in transparent and comparable ways. The promise of social value and the methods to quantify and monetize it, is tempered by a caution in distilling what are essentially people’s stories and experiences into dollars and a ratio. While there is much to be gained from understanding the financial gains and savings made through social impact initiatives – telling us about the efficiency and effectiveness of service and program delivery – this approach is also problematic, in that some outcomes cannot be quantified or monetized, and in many instances, they should not be. For example, understanding and reporting community goals, like that documented by Nikolakis and Myers Ross in their chapter (Nikolakis and Myers Ross 2022), on the connection people feel with their lands, or the feelings they have around the revitalization of their stewardship practices, and the increased respect for their laws, are difficult to quantify. These are in essence personal stories that when collated, represent community stories, which are qualitative, and efforts to quantify these are simplistic and culturally inappropriate. As this book shows, there is a need for a principled and human-focused approach to social value and its measurement (i.e. Social Return on Investment, SROI). Yet, according to Nadja Damtoft and W. Nikolakis (*) Gathering Voices Society, Vancouver, BC, Canada Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 W. Nikolakis, R. Moura da Veiga (eds.), Social Value, Climate Change and Environmental Stewardship: Insights from Theory and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23145-2_9

139

140

W. Nikolakis

colleagues (2022), much of the attention on social value and SROI has been on the technical challenges, or developing transparent, reliable and valid techniques for calculating social value, and addressing issues like appropriate proxies, ‘deadweight’ (the amount of social value that would have happened without the intervention) and ‘drop off’ (the social value that decreases over time) in calculating SROI. These technical issues are important to solve – particularly as social value is taken to scale – but at the same time, the chapters underscore the importance of giving ‘voice’ to peoples who are affected by the intervention, or their ‘stories’ and experiences, which offers a richer perspective on impact on matters that are material to them. When combined with longitudinal and robust study designs, these narratives can enhance understanding on issues of effectiveness, efficiency, as well as equity in social value interventions. The organisation measuring and reporting on social value must take an inclusive approach on the voices captured in their social value analysis. Nikolakis and Myers Ross (2022), used individual and collective methods to identifying the priorities for community members, and to guide the evaluation of the  Yunesit’in fire (Qwen) stewardship program. These measures were holistic, reflecting ideals that are difficult to measure in quantitative terms, which were distinct to the quantitative measures that funders typically evaluate these kinds of projects on. But quantitative measures do not capture the nuances of social value to those who the intervention is trying to reach. One of the most profound issues for social value is in the integration of gender analysis, like that identified by Chiu et al. (2022), which they reflect, is typically treated as an after-thought, rather than as a core part of any social value analysis and reporting. The authors also examine the role of gender analysis in the design of climate interventions, finding these typically neglect gender analysis, meaning there can be unintended consequences and outcomes from climate actions and policies for women (in many cases, these are negative). To achieve the full promise of social value, people of all genders must be integral to the design, implementation and evaluation of any interventions that impact them. Inclusive and qualitative approaches require more resources and different capabilities to conventional quantitative reporting. Organizations may have to hire people to facilitate community meetings and then to document the outcomes from meetings, and this information is then analyzed, interpreted and presented in ways that share the stories of people and their experience with the intervention. Stories are an important way for Indigenous peoples to share information and to learn, and this can be an important way to engage and empower Indigenous peoples in social value analysis. As the chapters underscore, it is the process rather than the outputs from social value analysis that is most transformative. Hinchley and colleagues (2022) detail the development of Health Country Planning, a Development by Design process that engages with and empowers Indigenous Australians to establish proactive spatial plans to their territories, and to set goals for specific areas – some 44 Healthy Country Plans cover an area of 109.8 million hectares of land and sea country. This planning processes builds a foundation for Indigenous groups to develop sustainable economies in their territories that reflect their own priorities – this is at the core of the social value movement, where

9  Final Conclusions – Social Value and Measuring It: Challenges, Opportunities…

141

the goal has been to expand our collective vision of value – beyond financial value and to encompass other priorities and worldviews to enrich the health and wellbeing of people and the environment. Moeliono and colleagues (2022), and the chapter by Kisil (2022) both demonstrate the challenges in top-down approaches for addressing complex social problems and catalyzing social value in diverse democracies with high rates of inequality. Moeliono et al. (2022) document the evolution of social forestry in Indonesia – from its genesis as a way to promote forest access to local and customary communities, to its current framing as a way to promote profits and self-sufficiency – the chapter demonstrates that centralized programs to support social value may depart from the goals of communities, and in this case threatens to erase the ‘social’ from ‘social forestry’. While in Brazil the government’s response to COVID-19 deepened the social and political inequality in the country – but through this, communities activated to meet their own needs through the own resources and social networks (Kisil 2022). Resourcing these community efforts are critical to meeting the inequality challenge in Brazil and advancing social value in a highly challenging socio-­ political environment.

9.2 Future Directions There are well-documented technical challenges to measuring social value  – the focus of this book has been around moving social value as a practice towards a people-oriented approach. Richards (2023) identifies three calls to action for social value moving forward: social impact measurement must be treated as an investment and not a cost; social impact management needs people and organizations to have the capacity to implement social value analysis (including the technical and social science skills); and there must be an accountability for the impacts people have on our planet, to the same level as we have for financial impacts. In moving  towards more inclusive and human-centered practices to analyze social value, particularly those involving Indigenous peoples, specific attention must be put on methods to empower affected communities. There are the necessary questions about who is involved, how they are involved and how their stories are documented. Community-led approaches bring expression to the lived reality of social value  – like that identified by Nikolakis and Myers-Ross (Nikolakis and Myers-Ross 2022). These are typically holistic perspectives of social value in the context of Indigenous peoples reclaiming their lands and stewardship, that encompass land, people, culture and spirit – sharing these perspectives through story gives voice to people, enables ownership over the evaluation process, and supports learning, like that documented in Healthy Country Planning by Hinchley et  al. 2022. Nikolakis and Myers-Ross (2022) call on funders to accommodate stories when evaluating their impact investments, which can provide the space for Indigenous peoples to share their perspectives and worldviews on social value and outcomes.

142

W. Nikolakis

The importance of deconstructing and critically analyzing what social value means, and who defines and interprets social value, and for what purposes, is fundamental to social value moving forward. For Chiu et  al. 2022, this includes the involvement of people of all genders in designing the intervention and evaluation, which may include more granular measures and data, and sensitivity to people’s lived realities, what is material to them, and the barriers to advancing social value at a personal and systemic level. Only then can transformative change be enabled, which tackles the root causes of social, political, ecological and economic problems – and meaningfully advances social value over the long term. Bottom-up approaches are critical for advancing social value, with focus on empowering people in defining what is material to them, the way services and interventions are delivered, and how this is evaluated. As the evidence from Brazil (Kisil 2022) and Indonesia (Moeliono et al. 2022) makes clear, it is people, their stories and experiences that give vitality and expression to social value – institutionalizing social value in centralized governments or other institutions will simply not advance social value in meaningful ways. The power in social value is with the people – and building processes to support this are fundamental to social value, and its potential to support our collective resilience.

References Chiu B, Weisert L, Campian C (2022) Advancing gender equity and equality in climate: analyzing the gender and social value of climate interventions. In: Nikolakis W, da Veiga RM (eds) Handbook of social value for environmental stewardship. Springer Nature, Berlin, pp 70–91 Damtoft NF, Rainer L, Dennis VL et al (2022) A critical perspective on the measurement of social value through SROI. In: Nikolakis W, da Veiga RM (eds) Handbook of social value for environmental stewardship. Springer Nature, Berlin, pp 22–43 Hinchley D, Weisenberger F, Parriman D et al (2022) Integrating social value in landscape planning: experiences from working with indigenous communities in Australia. In: Nikolakis W, da Veiga RM (eds) Handbook of social value for environmental stewardship. Springer Nature, Berlin, pp 108–121 Kisil M (2022) Social value during a pandemic: insights from Brazil. In: Nikolakis W, da Veiga RM (eds) Handbook of social value for environmental stewardship. Springer Nature, Berlin, pp 92–106 Moeliono M, Sahide MAK, Bong IW et al (2022) Social forestry in Indonesia: fragmented values, progress, contradictions, and opportunities. In: Nikolakis W, da Veiga RM (eds) Handbook of social value for environmental stewardship. Springer Nature, Berlin, pp 145–168 Nikolakis W, Myers Ross R (2022) Lighting the path forward: understanding social value from indigenous fire (Qwen) stewardship. In: Nikolakis W, da Veiga RM (eds) Handbook of social value for environmental stewardship. Springer Nature, Berlin, pp 133–144 Richards A (2023) Measuring and managing social value: myths and opportunities. In: Nikolakis W, da Veiga RM (eds) Handbook of social value for environmental stewardship. Springer Nature, Berlin, pp 44–69