Socio economic opportunities and risks for local populations

For example, if a group of hunter-gatherers will have the forest in which they hunt protected from grazing and cutting of trees – is it discussed how local herders in need of grazing land or those using trees for building or firewood will be affected?

For example, is the trade-off between earning income by cutting trees and selling them vs. leaving them to grow and absorb carbon discussed? How is the frequent need for emergency cash among people with little or no economic buffer dealt with if they, for example, are restricted from collecting wood for fast cash incomes?

For example, if project money is used to set up a school fee fund or hospital fund – how will equal access to the money be ensured? If a project contributes to building a new building such as a school block or clinic, each household may be asked to contribute by the community leadership to cover parts of the construction costs. It is common in rural areas in many countries that households are expected to contribute to common buildings, and poor households are usually expected to contribute the same amount as rich and may become indebted.

For example, does the project standard specify a minimum sample size of local people from different social status groups (people with different access to social, political and natural resources, such as social networks, decision making, information and land) when evaluating the project?

For example, many countries have relaxed laws about impacts on local populations. Guards guarding plantations may be allowed to shoot at local people who venture into a tree plantation. Simply referring to following local laws or regulations may not ensure that people are treated in ways that buyers of offsets would expect.

For example, projects focusing on protecting carbon stocks in trees may evict people using dry or living wood for charcoal making even in cases when they really need cash, for example for medical emergencies.

For example, market-related risk could have severe negative impacts such as fluctuating commodity prices or unreliable global demand. Most communities do not have different carbon projects to choose between – they cannot bargain for better price for their carbon storage. What happens if insects, forest fires or other unforeseen events destroy the trees – are all risks taken by the communities who will not get paid in these cases?

Often carbon-related risks are given a lot of space while socio-economic issues are not analysed in as much detail, even if they are very complex and risks are high.

For example, if the project proponent suggests that communication with a local leader will reduce socio-economic risks for all farmers and herders participating in the project, this does not describe how the local leader will be able to handle the risks and it doesn’t take into account power relations between the leader and other community members.

For example conditions could be that participants need to be property owners and/or with secure land access, trees have to grow at a certain speed, or remain standing for 20 years. Conditions always present a stress and a risk of exclusion, which invites deceptive practices. They must be very carefully considered and fair to people participating.

This is common in development projects and research has shown that situations are very rarely so simple. Using such descriptions indicate a too simplistic understanding of local situations and is likely setting the project up for failure.

If it is a useful project that is adapted to people’s ongoing livelihoods, it will often pick up through no or smaller incentives such as simple equipment or free training, and then spread organically. Large payments to certain individuals in a community are likely to cause jealousy, accusations of corruption and various other local conflicts.

Such figures frequently hide local concerns and especially from marginal groups who may need to be actively sought up and interviewed by staff trained for this purpose.