تأملاتی درباره ارزیابی تأثیر اجتماعی در قرن بیست‌ویکم (ترجمه)
محورهای موضوعی :فرانک ونکلي 1 , فاطمه تنها (مترجم) 2
1 - دانشکده علوم فضايي ـ مکاني
2 - استادیار دانشکده علوم اجتماعی دانشگاه تهران
کلید واژه: ارزیابی تأثیرات اجتماعی, مجوز اجتماعی برای فعالیت و رشد, مشارکت عمومی, استانداردهای بین¬المللی محیطی, مسائل اجتماعی و حکومتی و مسئولیت اجتماعی شرکت,
چکیده مقاله :
ارزیابی تأثیر اجتماعی (اتا)، زمینه‌ای از تحقیق و عمل است که به هر موردی که با مدیریت مسائل اجتماعی در طول چرخه عمر پروژه (پیش از شروع آن تا پس از اتمام) مرتبط است، می‌پردازد. اتا از یک ابزار نظارتی به فرآیند مدیریت مسائل اجتماعی یک پروژه که توسعه‌دهندگان، تأمین‌کنندگان مالی، جوامع آسیب‌دیده و مؤسسات صدور مجوز محیط‌زیستی از آن استفاده می‌کنند، تبدیل شده است. اتا، موارد زیر را در نظر می‌گیرد: اشتراک منافع، چرخه‌های رونق و رکود، توسعۀ جامعه، مشارکت جامعه، تاب‌آوری جامعه، میراث فرهنگی، بررسی دقیق، توانمندسازی، مسائل جنسیتی، مکانیسم‌های رسیدگی به شکایات، حقوق بشر، تأثیرات و موافقت‌نامه‌های مزایا، مردم بومی، مهاجرت، احیای معیشت، محتوای محلی، تدارکات محلی، جابه¬جایی و اسکان مجدد ناشی از پروژه، اثرات روانی اجتماعی، عملکرد اجتماعی، برنامه‌های مدیریت تأثیر اجتماعی، شمول اجتماعی، سرمایه‌گذاری اجتماعی، مجوز اجتماعی برای فعالیت، عملکرد اجتماعی، مشارکت ذی‌نفعان، گروه‌های آسیب‌پذیر و مسائل سنتی مانند شناسایی اثرات اجتماعی و طراحی مداخلات برای کاهش آسیب‌ها. اتا بیش از پنجاه سال است که در کشورهای مختلف اجرا می‌شود، با این حال مسائل پیچیده‌ای از جمله اسکان مجدد غیر ارادی، احیای معیشت، تعلق به مکان، احساس به مکان، حفظ میراث فرهنگی ناملموس و یافتن زمین جایگزین، از جمله مسائل باقی‌مانده در طرح‌های اتاست. فساد، رانت‌خواری، تسخیر نخبگان، احتکار و رفتار فرصت‌طلبانه از جمله موارد مشکل‌ساز در اجرای اتاست.
Social impact assessment (SIA) is a field of research and practice that deals with everything related to the management of social issues throughout the life cycle of a project (before its initiation to its completion). ETA has evolved from a monitoring tool to a project social issue management process used by developers, financiers, affected communities and environmental licensing agencies. Eta considers the following: interest sharing, boom and bust cycles, community development, community participation, community resilience, cultural heritage, due diligence, empowerment, gender issues, grievance mechanisms, human rights, impact and benefits agreements, Indigenous people, migration, livelihood restoration, local content, local procurement, project-induced displacement and resettlement, psychosocial impacts, social performance, social impact management plans, social inclusion, social investment, social license to operate, social performance, stakeholder participation Beneficiaries, vulnerable groups and traditional issues such as identifying social effects and designing interventions to reduce harm. ETA has been implemented in various countries for more than 50 years, yet complex issues such as involuntary resettlement, livelihood restoration, belonging to place, sense of place, preservation of intangible cultural heritage and finding alternative land remain among the remaining issues in the plans. It's a waste. Corruption, rent-seeking, capture of elites, hoarding and opportunistic behavior are among the problematic cases in the implementation of ETA.
Albrecht G. (2006). Solastalgia. Alter J. 32(4/5):34–36. Aucamp I, Lombard A. (2018). Can social impact assessment contribute to social development outcomes in an emerging economy? Imp Assess Proj Apprais. 36(2):173–185. Baines J, Taylor CN, Vanclay F. (2013). Social impact assessment and ethical social research principles: ethical professional practice in impact assessment Part II. Imp Assess Proj Apprais. 31(4):254–260. Brereton D, Owen J, Kim J (2011). Good practice note community development agreements. accessed 2019 Aug 16. http://www.eisourcebook.org/cms/files/csrm_good_practice_notes_on_cdas_document_final_260911.pdf. CBD. (2004). Akwe´: kon – voluntary guidelines for the conduct of cultural, environmental and social impact assessment regarding developments proposed to take place on, or which are likely to impact on, sacred sites and on lands and waters traditionally occupied or used by Indigenous and local communities. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. accessed 2019 Aug 16. https://www. cbd.int/doc/publications/akwe-brochure-en.pdf. Dare M, Schirmer J, Vanclay F. (2014). Community engagement and social licence to operate. Imp Assess Proj Apprais. 32 (3):188–197. Dendena B, Corsi S. (2015). The environmental and social impact assessment: a further step towards an integrated assessment process. J Clean Prod. 108:965–977. Dunlop CA, Radaelli CM, eds. (2016). Handbook of regulatory impact assessment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 29(2):137–145. Eoin L, King R. (2013). How to develop intangible heritage: the case of Metolong Dam, Lesotho. World Archaeol. 45 (4):653–669. Esteves AM, Factor G, Vanclay F, Götzmann N, Moreiro S. (2017). Adapting Social Impact Assessment to address a project’s human rights impacts and risks. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 67:73–87. Esteves AM, Franks D, Vanclay F. (2012). Social Impact Assessment: the state of the art. Imp Assess Proj Apprais. 30(1):35–44. Esteves AM, Vanclay F. (2009). Social development needs analysis as a tool for SIA to guide corporate-community investment: applications in the minerals industry. Franks D, Davis R, Bebbington A, Ali S, Kemp D, Scurrah M. (2014). Conflict translates environmental and social risk into business costs. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 111(21):7576–7581. Franks D, Vanclay F. (2013). Social Impact Management Plans: innovation in corporate and public policy. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 43:40–48. Galway LP, Beery T, Jones-Casey K, Tasala K. (2019). Mapping the solastalgia literature: A scoping review study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 16(15):2662. Götzmann N, Vanclay F, Seier F. (2016). Social and human rights impact assessments: what can they learn from each other? Imp Assess Proj Apprais. 34(1):14–23. Hanna P, Vanclay F, Langdon EJ, Arts J. (2014). Improving the effectiveness of impact assessment pertaining to Indigenous peoples in the Brazilian environmental licensing procedure. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 46:58–67. --------------------------------------------------- (2016a). Conceptualizing social protest and the significance of protest action to large projects. Extrac Indus Soc. 3(1):217–239. ---------------------------------------------------- (2016b). The importance of cultural aspects in impact assessment and project development: reflections from a case study of a hydroelectric dam in Brazil. Imp Assess Proj Apprais. 34(4):306–318. Hanna P, Vanclay F. (2013). Human rights, Indigenous peoples and the concept of Free, Prior and Informed Consent. Imp Assess Proj Apprais. 31(2):146–157. Hidalgo C, Peterson K, Smith D, Foley H. (2014). Extracting with purpose. Boston: FSG. IFC. (2012). Performance standards and guidance notes. Washington DC: International Finance Corporation. accessed 2019 Aug 16. http://www.ifc.org/performancestandards. Jijelava D, Vanclay F. (2017). Legitimacy, credibility and trust as the key components of a social licence to operate: an analysis of BP’s projects in Georgia. J Clean Prod. 140 (Part 3):1077–1086. --------------------------- (2018). How a large project was halted by the lack of a Social Licence to Operate: testing the applicability of the Thomson and Boutilier Model. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 73:31–40. Kemp D, Owen J. (2018). The industrial ethic, corporate refusal and the demise of the social function in mining. Sustain Develop. 26:491–500. Kemp D, Vanclay F. (2013). Human rights and impact assessment: clarifying the connections in practice. Imp Assess Proj Apprais. 31(2):86–96. Kvam R. (2018). Social impact assessment: integrating social issues in development projects. Washington DC: InterAmerican Development Bank. accessed 2019 Aug 16. https://publications.iadb.org/handle/11319/8917.
O’Faircheallaigh C. (2017). Shaping projects, shaping impacts: community-controlled impact assessments and negotiated agreements. Third World Q. 38(5):1181–1197.
OECD. (2011). OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises (2011 edition). Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. accessed 2019 Aug 16. http://mneguidelines.oecd.org/guidelines/.
Ogwang T, Vanclay F. (2019). Social impacts of land acquisition for oil and gas development in Uganda. Land. 8(7):109.
Parsons R, Everingham J, Kemp D. (2019). Developing social impact assessment guidelines in a pre-existing policy context. Imp Assess Proj Apprais. 37(2):114–123.
Parsons R, Moffat K. (2014). Constructing the meaning of social licence. Social Epistem. 28(3–4):340–363.
Porter M, Kramer M. (2011). Creating shared value. Harv Bus Rev. 89:62–77. Reddy G, Smyth E, Steyn M. 2015. Land access and resettlement: a guide to best practice. Sheffield: Greenleaf.
Rodhouse T, Vanclay F. (2016). Is free, prior and informed consent a form of corporate social responsibility? J Clean Prod. 131:785–794.
Smyth E, Vanclay F. (2017). The Social Framework for Projects: A conceptual but practical model to assist in assessing, planning and managing the social impacts of projects. Imp Assess Proj Apprais. 35(1):65–80.
United Nations. (2011). The guiding principles on business and human rights: implementing the UN ‘respect, protect and remedy framework’. New York: United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. accessed 2019 Aug 16. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/ .
GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf. van der Ploeg L, Vanclay F. (2013). Credible claim or corporate spin: A checklist to evaluate corporate sustainability reports. J Environ Assess Pol Manag. 15(3):1350012.
van der Ploeg L, Vanclay F. (2017). A human rights based approach to project-induced displacement and resettlement. Imp Assess Proj Apprais. 35(1):34–52.
----------------------------------- (2018). Challenges in implementing the corporate responsibility to respect human rights in the context of project-induced displacement and resettlement. Res Pol. 55:210–222.
Vanclay F, Baines J, Taylor CN.(2013). Principles for ethical research involving humans: ethical professional practice in impact assessment Part I. Imp Assess Proj Apprais. 31 (4):243–253.
Vanclay F, Esteves AM, Aucamp I, Franks D. (2015). Social Impact Assessment: guidance for assessing and managing the social impacts of projects. Fargo ND: International Association for Impact Assessment. [accessed 2019 Aug 16]. http://www.iaia.org/uploads/pdf/SIA_Guidance_ Document_IAIA.pdf.
Vanclay F, Hanna P. (2019). Conceptualising company response to community protest: principles to achieve a social license to operate. Land. 8(6):101.
Vanclay F.(2002). Conceptualising social impacts. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 22(3):183–211.
------------- (2003). International principles for social impact assessment. Imp Assess Proj Apprais. 21(1):5–11.
------------- (2006). Principles for Social Impact Assessment: A critical comparison between the International and US documents. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 26(1):3–14.
------------- (2008). Place matters. In: Vanclay F, Higgins M, Blackshaw A, editors. Making sense of place. Canberra: National Museum of Australia Press; p. 2–11.
------------- (2012). The potential application of Social Impact Assessment in integrated coastal zone management. Ocean Coast Manag. 68:149–156.
------------- (2014). Developments in Social Impact Assessment: an introduction to a collection of seminal research papers. In: Vanclay F, editor. Developments in Social Impact Assessment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; p. xv–xxxix.
------------- (2015). Changes in the impact assessment family 2003-2014: implications for considering achievements, gaps and future directions. J Environ Assess Pol Manag. 17(1):1550003 (20 pages).
------------- (2017a). Project induced displacement and resettlement: from impoverishment risks to an opportunity for development? Imp Assess Proj Apprais. 35 (1):3–21.
------------ (2017b). Principles to assist in gaining a social licence to operate for green initiatives and biodiversity projects. Current Opi Environ Sustain. 29:48–56.
Wilson E. (2019). What is Benefit Sharing? Respecting Indigenous rights and addressing inequities in Arctic resource projects. Resources. 8(2):74.