Design and planning ● What are the unit economics and market viability of alternatives? Do proposed alternatives meet food security and income needs? ● Are enabling conditions in place (market access, logistics, social services, infrastructure)? Have transport and market bottlenecks been stress-tested? ● Are offset mechanisms commensurate with the magnitude and duration of costs? Are targeting criteria clear and based on vulnerability? ● Can the project effectively demonstrate its capacity to reconcile trade-offs between ecological timelines and social priorities? Early implementatio ● Are alternatives profitable and stable across seasons? ● Are support mechanisms timely and reaching intended beneficiaries? ● Are benefits scaling from households to communities and across the landscape? Midline ● Are outcomes stable across seasons and shocks? Are bottlenecks resolved? Endline/Close ● Did alternatives remain viable and deliver net positive outcomes at household, community, and landscape levels? The table below provides key examples of the data to collect at each stage of the project to test the assumptions detailed above: Example of Data / Methods to test assumptions ● Institutional and political context screening, including governance and implementation risk identification. ● Land tenure assessment using GIS analysis and legal review. ● Stakeholder, governance, and influence mapping, including elite capture risk analysis. ● Community and household socio-economic analysis, including livelihood composition, dependency on natural resources, vulnerability, seasonality, and risk-hedgin functions of resource use. ● Incentive and behavioural analysis, including risk-benefit assessment of existing practices, socio-cultural norms diagnostics, and formal and informal rules mapping. ● Market and economic systems analysis, including value chains, informal or illicit market dynamics, and unit-economics of alternative livelihoods. ● Governance and institutional diagnostics assessing mandates, legitimacy, decision-making processes, dispute resolution capacity, and implementing partner capacity (including ethics and corruption risk). ● FPIC processes, co-designed benefit-sharing frameworks, and grievance mechanism design and monitoring. 81
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2