Degradation/deforestation

For example, have historical events such as previous wars or migrations been investigated that are important to understand any degradation? Does the investigation include the voices and perspectives of local communities about if and why the area has been deforested/degraded? If any particular group is pointed out as the one causing degradation, has there been a thorough discussion with members of that group to understand their perspectives?

For example, interviews and surveys could have included leading questions, voices of the local people could be cherry-picket to reflect those whose opinions align with the project idea, satellite imagery can be too coarse to be easily interpretable (and thus vulnerable to misinterpretation based on preconceived ideas).

For example external factors driving degradation can be climate change, external pressure on land from mining or conservation that forces farmers to cut forests to prepare agricultural land, large-scale logging, historical clear-cutting and urban demand for charcoal.

Tree planting can be done in very different ways – a common way is large-scale monoculture plantation of exotic species, as this is cheap and efficient for carbon sequestration. However, planting only one tree species have been shown to be a threat to both local people and their environments, reducing biodiversity and availability of locally used trees. Local wildlife or insects may not be used to exotic trees and loss of pollinators may affect agriculture. People often need to leave their land to make space for large plantations, or are restricted from accessing the area afterwards, and monocultures require more agricultural inputs such as pesticides and fertilizers. Tree restoration initiatives, or agroforestry-based tree planting where a few trees are planted and often mixed with agricultural practices, can have very different impacts locally – farmers may have more decision-making power over what trees are planted and where. The risk of rural people losing land is usually smaller. However, these projects can still have problematic aspects and impacts in other aspects discussed in this guide.

If species-rich savannah or bush land, or land used by migrating animals or for agroforestry practices is being replaced by denser monoculture plantations, this could result in a severe loss of biodiversity and reduced access to natural products such as grass, fire wood or roots for local communities. 

For example, the area is described as “dry and with only a few trees” and therefore degraded, while the area may have looked like that naturally for a long time. Descriptions of degradation should include explanations of what the area should look like and why, according to who?

For example, the evidence presented for degradation/deforestation is anecdotal, as in ”some local people report high rates of deforestation” without explaining how representative this opinion is or without any other evidence confirming it. Local communities are diverse and over-use can exist in parallel with local systems for management. Only focusing on the over-use practices can miss, or even counter-act, ongoing and locally chosen methods to conserve forests. It can also miss opportunities to learn from and build on such existing systems.

For example, stating “This country has an annual deforestation rate of 2%” …seemingly inferring that deforestation is then happening in every locality.

For example, projects often state they will prohibit firewood collection, grazing or shifting cultivation without explaining how the people who depended on those practices will survive. People are rarely compensated in these cases and those receiving compensation are often not the most marginalized parts of the community. Employment creation may not reach those worst affected by restrictions.

For example, third-party verification documents echo statements from project proponent documents, indicating that the verifier possibly has not done any independent investigations.