NISM Series XXIII key terms

A structured process for identifying, predicting and evaluating the social consequences of a planned project, policy or intervention before decisions are finalised, and for designing measures that avoid harm and improve benefits for affected communities.

A formal procedure that predicts the environmental effects of a proposed development and feeds them into the approval decision. Social Impact Assessment often runs alongside or inside it, sharing baseline studies, public consultation and the same regulatory timeline.

The early stage of an assessment that decides which impacts, geographic areas and stakeholder groups the study will cover, and which can be excluded. Good scoping prevents wasted effort on irrelevant issues and ensures significant social risks are not overlooked.

The written mandate for an assessment, setting out objectives, study area, methods, team composition, deliverables, timeline and reporting requirements. Regulators or lenders often approve the ToR before fieldwork begins, so it defines the boundaries of what the study must prove.

The collection of pre-project data on population, livelihoods, health, culture, land use and institutions in the affected area. It provides the reference point against which later change is measured, so weak baselines make impact predictions and monitoring unreliable.

Estimating the likely direction, magnitude, duration and likelihood of social changes that a project would cause, using baselines, models, analogues and expert judgement. Predictions should state their assumptions and uncertainty rather than present single-point figures as certainties.

A change large enough, or affecting a vulnerable group severely enough, to matter in the approval decision. Significance is judged by scale, duration, reversibility, number of people affected and whether affected groups can absorb or adapt to the change.

The combined effect of the proposed project together with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities in the same area. A small individual impact can become significant when added to others, for example repeated land acquisition along one river valley.

The ordered preference for managing impacts: avoid the impact entirely, then minimise it, then restore affected conditions, and only lastly offset residual harm. Regulators and lenders expect applicants to show why higher-order options were rejected before offsets are accepted.

The implementation document that converts assessment findings into commitments: specific measures, responsible parties, budgets, timelines and indicators. It is the bridge between the report and actual practice, and auditors test performance against it.

People whose living conditions, assets, livelihoods, health or cultural practices are likely to change because of a project, whether negatively or positively. Identifying them precisely determines who is consulted, compensated and monitored.

A lender term for those within a project's area of influence who are physically or economically displaced, or whose livelihoods, health or safety are affected. It is broader than formal land titleholders and includes informal users such as tenants, herders and vendors.

Loss of shelter or residential land that forces people to relocate, whether or not they hold formal title. It triggers resettlement planning, compensation for structures and transition support, and is treated as the most severe form of project-induced loss.

Loss of assets or access to assets that deprives people of income sources, such as farmland, grazing land, fishing grounds, shopfronts or employment. People may keep their homes yet still lose their livelihoods, so cash compensation alone rarely restores them.

The planned relocation of displaced people and the rebuilding of their housing, services and livelihoods. Sound resettlement aims to leave people no worse off, and preferably better off, than before the project rather than merely paying for lost structures.

The detailed instrument for a resettlement programme, covering entitlements, cut-off dates, compensation rates, relocation sites, livelihood restoration, grievance procedures and budget. It is usually required before displacement begins and is monitored against agreed indicators.

A table that maps each category of loss and each affected group to the compensation or assistance they will receive. It makes entitlements transparent and consistent, and helps reveal gaps where informal users would otherwise receive nothing.

The declared date after which new arrivals or newly built structures in the project area no longer qualify for compensation. It prevents speculative encroachment, but must be publicly announced and applied humanely to genuinely vulnerable households.

Measures that help displaced or affected people regain and improve their income-earning capacity, such as skills training, replacement land, credit, job placement or market access. Success is measured by restored income over time, not by disbursement of compensation cheques.

The ongoing process of informing, consulting and involving people who influence or are affected by a project. Effective engagement is early, iterative, culturally appropriate and documented, and it shapes decisions rather than merely announcing them.

The principle that Indigenous peoples must give consent, freely and without coercion, before activities affecting their lands, resources or cultural heritage proceed, with information supplied well in advance. It goes beyond consultation because affected communities hold a genuine veto in defined circumstances.

Distinct social and cultural groups with ancestral ties to land and resources, self-identified as indigenous, and often subject to historical marginalisation. Assessments must address their collective rights, customary tenure and cultural heritage, which standard compensation frameworks frequently miss.

People at greater risk of harm or of being left out of benefits because of poverty, gender, age, disability, ethnicity, landlessness or legal status. Assessments must identify them explicitly and design targeted measures, since average-level mitigation can worsen their position.

Examination of how a project affects women, men and other genders differently, given unequal roles, workloads, property rights and decision-making power. It identifies risks such as women losing access to common resources or being excluded from compensation because titles are held by men.

A formal channel through which affected people can raise complaints about a project and receive a timely, fair response. A credible mechanism is accessible, free, documented, transparent about timelines and independent enough to correct the project's own conduct.

Systematic, repeated measurement of agreed indicators during and after implementation to check whether impacts matched predictions and mitigation worked. It should cover both compliance with commitments and actual outcomes for affected people, with findings fed back into management.

An independent, structured review of whether an assessment was competent and whether management measures were actually implemented and effective. Audits typically examine documentation, site conditions and stakeholder testimony, and may be required by regulators or lenders.

A scheduled, publicly notified meeting where the project proponent presents findings and affected people can record objections and questions. In many jurisdictions it is a statutory step whose record must be considered in the final decision.

Tangible and intangible elements of a community's identity, including archaeological sites, sacred places, monuments, languages, rituals and traditional knowledge. Projects must avoid damaging them, and impacts on intangible heritage often require specialist study and consent-based processes.

The process by which a project obtains land, whether through negotiated purchase or compulsory taking backed by law. It is the main driver of displacement, so valuation, notice periods, title verification and prompt payment are central assessment concerns.

Payment or in-kind replacement for lost assets, land, structures or income. It should reflect full replacement cost without depreciation or transaction costs, and must be paired with livelihood support where assets cannot simply be replaced.

The amount needed to buy or rebuild an equivalent asset at local market prices, plus registration, transfer and moving costs, without deducting depreciation or salvage value. Using it prevents affected people from being made poorer by the transaction itself.

The ongoing acceptance and trust that local communities and other stakeholders extend to a project, earned through behaviour rather than granted by permit. It can be withdrawn quickly after incidents or broken promises, making it a real operational risk.

Displacement and loss of livelihood that people do not choose, arising from compulsory land taking or project restrictions. Because it is unplanned by those affected, policy requires active support to restore their standard of living rather than leaving them to negotiate alone.

A limitation on how people may use land or natural resources within a project area, such as bans on farming, grazing, fishing or access to a forest. Even without taking title, such limits can cause economic displacement and require compensation or alternative livelihoods.

A household-level count and profiling of people in the project area, recording assets, income sources, tenure status and vulnerabilities. Conducted before the cut-off date, it becomes the legal basis for who receives entitlements and how much.

The geographic and social extent of a project's likely effects, including the footprint, associated facilities, supply chains and induced development such as in-migration. Defining it too narrowly is a common reason assessments miss indirect impacts.

Movement of workers, traders and job-seekers into a project area, which can raise rents, strain services and alter social relations. It is an induced impact often overlooked because it is not caused by the project's physical footprint directly.