Examensarbete i Hållbar utveckling
REDD+ Projects Providing Sustainable
Livelihoods for Rural Communities? An
Assessment of Voluntary Carbon
Offsetting Projects in Peru and Tanzania
Laura Tapping
DEPARTMENT OF EARTH SCIENCES
Examensarbete i Hållbar utveckling
REDD+ Projects Providing Sustainable Livelihoods for
Rural Communities? An Assessment of Voluntary
Carbon Offsetting Projects in Peru and Tanzania
Laura Tapping
ii
CONTENT
Abstract ... v
Summary ... vi
List of Abbreviations ... 1
1. Introduction & Background ... 2
1.1 Aim and Research Questions ... 2
1.2 Carbon Offsetting: an introduction ... 3
1.3 The Voluntary Market Today: its organisation and how it conceptualises itself ... 4
1.4 REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) ... 4
1.4.1 REDD+ in Peru and Tanzania ... 5
1.5 The Role of Project Developers ... 6
1.6 Development of Standards ... 7
1.7 Standards Utilised by Case Projects ... 8
1.7.1 Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) & Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standards (CCBS) ... 8
1.7.2 Plan Vivo Standard (PVS) ... 9
2. Key Issues Found in the Literature on VM ... 9
2.1 The responsibility of VM to provide poverty alleviation ... 9
2.2 Exacerbating Inequalities ... 10
2.3 Asymmetrical Power ... 11
2.4 Creating Value ... 12
2.5 Chapter Summary ... 13
3. Conceptualising Livelihoods ... 13
3.1 Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA) ... 14
3.2 Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Approach (SRLA) ... 14
4. Methodology & Methods ... 15
4.1 Introduction ... 15
4.2 Data Collection ... 15
4.2.1 Project Design Documents (PDD) ... 15
4.2.2 Semi Structured Interviews ... 15
4.2.3 Verification & Monitoring document ... 16
4.3.4 Outside sources ... 17
4.3 Data Analysis ... 17
4.4 Ethics ... 18
4.5 Delimitations ... 18
iii
5.1 Alto Mayo Conservation Initiative ... 18
5.1.1 Involved Entities ... 19
5.2 Yaeda Valley REDD Project... 21
5.2.1 Involved Entities ... 21
6. Findings & Analysis ... 22
6.1 How do livelihood impacts anticipated by project developers align with actual outcomes? ... 23
6.2 To what level can these livelihood benefits be sustained post-project? ... 24
6.2.1 Creation of working days ... 24
6.2.2 Poverty Reduction ... 26
6.2.3 Well-being and Capabilities ... 27
6.2.4 Adaption and Resilience ... 29
6.3 What barriers are impeding an increase in positive community benefits? ... 31
6.3.1 Yaeda Valley ... 31
6.3.2 Alto Mayo ... 32
6.3.3 Transferable Barriers... 33
7. Concluding Remarks and Recommendations ... 33
8. Acknowledgments ... 35
9. References ... 36
v
REDD+ Projects Providing Sustainable Livelihoods for Rural
Communities? An Assessment of Voluntary Carbon Offsetting
projects in Peru and Tanzania
LAURA TAPPING
Tapping, L., 2020: REDD+ Projects Providing Sustainable Livelihoods for Rural Communities? An Assessment of Voluntary Carbon Offsetting projects in Peru and Tanzania. Master thesis in Sustainable Development at Uppsala University, No. 2020/52, 40 pp, 30 ECTS/hp
Abstract:
The voluntary carbon market, the area of focus for this thesis, developed alongside the compliance carbon market when individuals and organisations elected to compensate for their CO2 emissions. The steep growth in demand for voluntary carbon offset credits stemmed from the 2015 Paris Agreement. Climate issues were firmly on the agenda and carbon offsetting was viewed as a way for countries to meet their carbon reduction targets in efforts towards mitigating climate change. Since then, there has been a shift to natural climate solutions, namely forestry and land use carbon projects. The ideal host location for such projects oftentimes have an existing, usually poor, population. Project developers claim to help such populations by providing community benefits such as job creation and improved agricultural practices. However, there is a gap in the research which focuses on the future of these communities after the projects, and how sustainable the benefits are. This thesis examines the community benefits of two REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) projects: Alto Mayo Conservation Initiative, Peru and Yaeda Valley REDD Project, Tanzania. Interviews with project developers are cross-referenced with project documents and other available sources to analyse the sustainability of the livelihood impacts. The results show that the positive impacts of voluntary carbon projects on a local community can be sustained post-project. Overall, the well-being of community members can improve, as can decision-making skills and capacity levels. Project participants can become more adaptable to shocks as their livelihoods have diversified and they have stronger links with international markets. This link with international markets, however, can also become a barrier to livelihood benefits. As local people become reliant on market demand and project funds, they move away from subsistence farming and when demand drops, they may find it hard to prosper. Additionally, there is a risk that following the departure of the project and its developers, more malevolent and powerful parties may move into the area. To overcome these barriers, livelihood diversification opportunities need to be strengthened and land tenure issues clarified.
Keywords: Sustainable Development, carbon offsetting, REDD+, Sustainable Livelihoods, Project Communities,
voluntary carbon market
vi
REDD+ Projects Providing Sustainable Livelihoods for Rural
Communities? An Assessment of Voluntary Carbon Offsetting
projects in Peru and Tanzania
LAURA TAPPING
Tapping, L., 2020: REDD+ Projects Providing Sustainable Livelihoods for Rural Communities? An Assessment of Voluntary Carbon Offsetting projects in Peru and Tanzania. Master thesis in Sustainable Development at Uppsala University, No. 2020/52, 40 pp, 30 ECTS/hp
Summary:
Voluntary carbon offset projects can provide many benefits to the poor communities living within the project boundaries. Even after the project ends, many of these benefits such as job creation, improved education and income generation remain. The projects help to empower local people, improve their access to international markets, and strengthen their links to local governments. Despite this, there are still many risks that could negatively impact communities post-project. The new value put on the ecosystems can encourage more powerful and malevolent parties to enter the area, more conflict can arise from unequal resource access and political agendas can change. Additionally, some communities may have become so dependent on the money from the projects that they are even worse off after the project than before.
Carbon offsetting is the act of compensating for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by reducing the level of GHGs in the atmosphere elsewhere. In 2005, it became compulsory for some high polluting industries to offset their GHG emissions on the compliance carbon market. In addition to this, individuals and organisations can choose to offset their carbon footprint on what is known as the voluntary carbon market. The voluntary carbon market consists of projects which primarily act to stop carbon entering the atmosphere. An important way of doing this is by protecting woodland areas at risk from deforestation or degradation. In turn, this allows the carbon to remain stored in the trees. There are various means of protecting wooded areas, such as reducing the need for firewood, improving agricultural practices, and preventing illegal logging. The projects, however, all have limited lifespans, and so might the community benefits. This thesis focused on two voluntary carbon offset projects: Yaeda Valley REDD in Tanzania, and Alto Mayo Conservation Initiative in Peru. In-depth interviews were carried out with the project developers as they have a deep understanding of the project and its benefits. Additionally, outside sources and project documents were used to gain an insight into the benefits reaching the communities thanks to the project activities. These findings were then analysed to assess the likelihood of these community benefits continuing after the project. This thesis shows that carbon offset projects can have long lasting positive impacts on local people as long as certain steps are taken by project developers.
Keywords: Sustainable Development, carbon offsetting, REDD+, Sustainable Livelihoods, project communities,
voluntary carbon market
1
List of Abbreviations
AM Alto Mayo
AMCI Alto Mayo Conservation Initiative AMPF Alto Mayo Protected Forest
CCBS
Climate, Community, and Biodiversity Standards
CCRO
Certificate of Customary Right of Occupancy
CDM Clean Development Mechanism CI Conservation International CM Compliance (Carbon) Market
CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
CT Carbon Tanzania
ECOAN
The Association for Andean Ecosystems
FCPF
Forest Carbon Partnership Facility
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
GHG Greenhouse Gas
MSF
Multi-Stakeholder Forums
NGO
Nongovernmental Organisation
NPA
Natural Protected Areas
PDD
Project Design Documents
PES
Payment for Ecosystem Services
PVS
Plan Vivo Standards
REDD Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation
SERNANP
National Service of Natural Protected Areas by the State
SLA
Sustainable Livelihoods Approach
SRLA
Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Approach
UCRT
Ujamaa Community Resource Team
UNFCCC
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeVCS
Verified Carbon Standard
VER
Verified Emissions Reductions
VM Voluntary (Carbon) Market
2
1. Introduction & Background
Voluntary carbon offsetting projects have been implemented on a global scale in a concerted effort to mitigate climate change. In recent years, there has been a shift to natural climate solutions within the voluntary carbon market and the most commonly traded offset credit is from forestry and land use projects (Hamrick & Gallant, 2017). The volume of offsets generated in the forestry sector saw an increase of 264% between 2016 and 2018 (Donofrio, 2019).
Rural areas provide the appropriate landscape and natural assets for the establishment of carbon offsetting projects. Poorer countries, typically in the global south, meet the project developers’ budgetary requirements and their need for large, undeveloped spaces. Eighty per cent of the world’s poorest communities live in rural areas of developing countries (World Bank, 2017), mostly living off the land (Lipper & Cavatassi, 2004). Therefore, most suitable project locations have an existing population living in poverty whom project developers claim to benefit. Funding for these projects and the revenues generated from carbon credits typically originate in the global north. Consequently, carbon offsetting falls into the discourse of development and poverty alleviation (Lovell et al., 2009). Carbon offsetting projects have the potential to alleviate poverty through the introduction of new agricultural practices, capacity building and new employment opportunities. They can protect biodiversity and conserve natural habitats. However, it is widely acknowledged that such conservation initiatives do not easily coincide with the development requirements of rural communities and can even result in their further marginalisation. Many negative impacts come with these projects such as impeded infrastructure development, reduced access to natural resources, and exacerbated inequalities. Furthermore, questions of how the impacted communities will cope after project cessation remain unanswered. Carbon offsetting projects have limited lifecycles and any potential benefits provided by the projects may be lost on cessation. In 2020, as many longstanding carbon offsetting projects near the end of their lifespan, consideration must be given to the local communities who have found themselves involved with the carbon market and have been directly impacted by the projects. Vulnerable communities may have become reliant on the funding from the projects and could return to poverty or unsustainable practices once the project leaves the area. As more host countries begin to develop national carbon offset policies and scale up the number of projects within their borders, it is an opportune time to assess the effects on project participants. Learning from the mistakes and successes of existing projects will help to ensure project developers consider the futures of local communities post-project.
1.1 Aim and Research Questions
3
• How do livelihood impacts anticipated by project developers align with actual outcomes? • To what level can these livelihood benefits be sustained post-project?
• What barriers are impeding an increase in positive community benefits?
Before a detailed review in Chapter 2 of the key issues found in the relevant literature, a background description will be given of carbon offsetting and the voluntary carbon market as it is today. Chapter 3 outlines the frameworks and approaches utilised in guiding the research and analysis of this thesis. Semi-structured interviews and numerous documents and outside sources will be used to analyse two projects, Chapter 4 will offer justification for these chosen methods. Chapter 5 will present the projects in detail and the following chapter will discuss the findings and analysis. Finally, concluding remarks and recommendations for future research will be made.
1.2 Carbon Offsetting: an introduction
Compensating for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by supporting projects which contribute to reduction of emissions elsewhere is known as carbon offsetting. GHG emissions, the majority of which are produced in the global north, are measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). They can be directly equated to the amount of GHG that will be removed from, or prevented from entering, the atmosphere elsewhere (see, for instance, Cavanagh & Benjaminsen, 2014). Carbon offsetting is used as a means to mitigate climate change and the below section explains the mechanisms which enable this activity.
4
1.3 The Voluntary Market Today: its organisation and how it
conceptualises itself
Since it was established by NGOs and private companies in the early 1990s as a way to trade verified emissions reductions (VERs) (Bumpus & Liverman, 2011), the VM has experienced rapid growth. The number of organisations directly involved in the VM continues to increase, with 165 suppliers, including developers, retailers and investors choosing to be listed in the Ecosystem Marketplace supplier directory (Hamrick & Gallant, 2017). In 2018, US$295.7 million carbon credits were sold on the VM, representing the offset of 98.4 million tonnes of CO2e, the largest volume of voluntary offsets ever recorded (Donofrio et al, 2019). The steepest growth since 2005 (when only 12.5 million metric tonnes of CO2e were sold on the voluntary market) occurred following the Paris Agreement of 2015 which raised the profile of climate issues and “spurred many companies to announce new or more ambitious GHG mitigation commitments” (Hamrick & Gallant, 2017, p.5). Pricing on the VM is notably unregulated. The price per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) ranges from US$0.50 to US$50, despite the fact that “one tonne reduced in one corner of the world has the same effect as a tonne reduced in another part of the world” (Hamrick & Gallant, 2017, p. 8). Research shows that the main motivators for buying on the VM is corporate social responsibility and public relations (Milder et al., 2010), with the latter often leading to greenwashing scenarios.
Projects can be developed by nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) (Lovell & Liverman, 2010), who, by definition, seek to provide positive impacts to communities and/or biodiversity. Both the size of a project and the required investment is usually much smaller on the VM (Karhunmaa, 2016, p.71), allowing for an equivalent amount of GHG reductions at a lower cost than on the CM (Lovell, 2010). Less risk is involved when initiating a VM project, offering an opportunity to consider benefits beyond carbon sequestration. Moreover, because the CM is heavily focused on measurement and calculation, the difficulty of measuring sustainable development levels gives it lesser weighting within CM projects (Lovell & Liverman, 2010). From this, we can gather that positive impacts for local communities, known as ‘co-benefits’ (Karhunmaa, 2016, p.71), are more likely to be provided by VM projects. Lovell and colleagues go as far as saying that the VM acts as a corrective mechanism to the CM which has “tended to neglect sustainable development issues” (2009, p.2370). Moreover, it may be easier to influence policy and encourage project developers to take steps to improve social sustainability than in the compliance market. Hence, this research paper will focus solely on the voluntary carbon offset market. More specifically, the projects under analysis are both categorised as REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation), under the umbrella of forestry and land use projects. The next section will introduce REDD+ as a project category and will detail the implementation process of REDD+ projects in the host countries.
1.4 REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest
Degradation)
Combating climate change through the protection and sustainable management of forest areas whilst improving carbon stocks became a global initiative in 2007 (Bayrak & Marafa, 2016). Known as REDD+, the strategy expanded on the 2005 RED mechanism by adding a second 'D' to represent degradation and the '+' to represent the addition of enhanced forest carbon stocks (Miles, 2020). It was finalised at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s (UNFCCC) meeting in Bali (COP13) REDD+ would be a way for countries and industries to offset their large carbon footprints by paying "rainforest-rich nations and communities to conserve forests" (Miles, 2020, p. 3). The UN-REDD program and the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) both support readiness activities for the nationwide implementation of REDD+ (Angelsen, 2017).
It is understood that there are three phases to a nationwide REDD+ strategy:
5
Phase II—Implementation: Implementation of these plans, policies and measures
Phase III—Results-based actions: Results-based actions for reducing deforestation and forest degradation are supported at the national level, and results are fully measured, reported and verified
(Agarwal et al., 2018, p. 16)
Without a successfully implemented nationwide approach to the REDD+ mechanism, managing leakage can be a challenge. If the activities which are so damaging to the forest, and thus carbon stocks, are simply moved to another location on implementation of a project, no climate change mitigation occurs. This renders the project, in a sense, futile. Parrotta and colleagues (2012) suggest that addressing the root causes of deforestation when implementing a project is a way to reduce leakage. Using a landscape approach such as REDD+ can help to harmonise an increase in agriculture with ecosystem conservation "and increase synergies among multiple local, regional and global societal objectives" (Parrotta et al., 2012, p. 89). For a REDD+ project to be successful in improving livelihoods, local communities need to be included in the design and implementation phase, have control of monitoring and management processes, and receive carbon payments (Bayrak & Marafa, 2016; Phelps et al., 2010). Studies show that an added benefit of including communities in the carbon monitoring can even improve a developing country's ability to cut GHG emissions (Danielson, et al., 2011). Furthermore, developers should "invest in the capacity building of local communities to demand accountability in forest governance processes" to increase livelihood benefits (Bayrak & Marafa, 2016, p. 6). REDD+ is viewed by many as a poverty alleviation mechanism, proving extra income from carbon payments and improved land tenure (ibid). However, it can also be harmful in ways such as "preventing local communities from making use of the forest for subsistence or through unequal benefit sharing" (ibid, p. 8). Moreover, the compensation from REDD+ projects do not always match up with the income earned from the intensive agroforestry activities the farmers are asked to abandon (Campbell, 2009). Conflicts can arise when those involved in projects face animosity from those outside the project borders due to inequalities in payments.
By many, REDD+ is viewed as a neoliberal approach to conservation, as many Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) mechanisms are (Redford & Adams, 2009; Corebera, 2012). The commodification of nature can have "severe negative implications for conservation and development, as well as local communities" (Bayrak & Marafa, 2016, p. 12).
1.4.1 REDD+ in Peru and Tanzania
6
In a move towards a nationalised REDD+ policy, countries tend to take the 'nesting approach'. This effectively prepares the country by strengthening its "local institutional architectures" and aligning community conservation approaches with national governance regimes (Bayrak & Marafa, 2016, p.6). Importantly, there are three main Acts impacting the facilitation of REDD+ projects in Tanzania: (1) the Local Government Act directs that a village council must meet to discuss matters of public importance; (2) the Village Land Act is used to establish the land belonging to the village; (3) the Forest Act of 2002 enables "joint forest management (JFM) between villages and the government for government forest reserves and community based forest management (CBFM) in village forests" (Nantongo et al., 2019, p. 48). The land use planning team, comprised of elected village members, work with the village leaders to demarcate the land. Land is earmarked as agricultural, forest, residential, meeting areas etc and bylaws are subsequently drafted to decide upon the permissible activities in these areas and the consequences of breaking the rules (ibid).
1.5 The Role of Project Developers
7
Fig. 1. Offset Cycle (Hamrick & Gallant, 2017, p. 2)
Carbon market mechanisms reach across several spatial and temporal scales. Without effective planning carried out within a multitude of disciplines, problems may arise (Lee et al., 2016). Developers can aid the transfer of knowledge, funds, and technology between scales (Lee et al., 2016; Cash et al., 2006). NGOs and project developers act as ‘bridging organizations’ between “actors at different scales and overcome differentials of timing, incentive structure and knowledge” (Lee et al., 2016, p. 99). To address a mismatch in timing of payments, for instance, some developers sell carbon credits that are predicted to occur in the future to prevent the need for farmers etc to wait for the sequestration to occur before receiving payments (ibid). However, project developers do not always act in the best interests of the local communities or fulfil the role of advisor as well as they should (Benessaiah, 2012). Moreover, projects can exacerbate inequalities as communities lose access to resources (Estrada & Corbera, 2012); and local people fail to receive promised payments or employment as the benchmarks and criteria continue to change (Carton & Andersson, 2017). The next section discusses the development of carbon offsetting standards, some of which address these risks and set criteria to ensure project communities are benefitted.
1.6 Development of Standards
During the design phase of a project, internationally-recognised standards and third-party verifiers are used to validate the project and ensure its legitimacy. The standards did not develop at the same time as the VM but were implemented later when concerns raised by the media and other parties initiated the call for a more structured governance and new policies within the voluntary offset industry (Lovell
et al., 2009). The reselling of already used credits, known as double counting, and reports of child
8
environmental credibility and has assisted in the quality assurance of credits” (Bumpus et al., 2010, p. 7). The standards provide a set of criteria for the projects to be assessed against to ensure they are meeting set regulations. Also, there are certain accounting methodologies and reporting processes must be adhered to under the standards (Hamrick & Gallant, 2017). Presently, 99% of all projects on the VM are certified using over 13 different sets of standards, with VCS (Verified Carbon Standard) prevailing (Hamrick & Gallant, 2017).
Standards offer a baseline to assess what would happen without project implementation (Richards & Huebner, 2012a, p.399). This is then used to quantify the ‘additionality’ of a project, confirming that a project will perform carbon reduction or sequestration beyond the pre-project and the extrapolated levels. It guarantees that the benefits of the offsetting project would not have happened regardless, and that the project could not go ahead without funding from the offsetting marketplace (Richards & Huebner, 2012a, p.400). The standards also measure project permanence, assuring as far as possible that the carbon sequestration or reduction provided during the project lifecycle is long-lasting. If any displacement of carbon emissions occurs during a project, this is classed as ‘leakage’ under the standards and does not adhere to the set criteria. For example, the cessation of logging in one forest does not quell the demand for timber, so the industry may take up in another area, continuing the release of CO2 (Richards & Huebner, 2012b). Leakage also occurs when emissions are increased elsewhere due to the project requirements for extra materials (ibid). Developers should foresee this and incorporate into their designs a way to manage it. Guaranteeing permanence is a challenge with forestry projects as it difficult to prevent the destruction of a forest either by nature or by human intervention. Standards, thus, will usually ensure permanence over a period of 20-30 years (Howard et al., 2015).
These standards are not without criticism. Some argue that, when using different standards to assess one specific project, the carbon reduction potential varied greatly due to the inconsistent measurement and criteria within the standards (Galik et al., 2009). The standards can be vague, misleading and detail provided to project developers can be lacking (Richards & Huebner, 2012a). This can be manipulated to the project developers’ advantage during the project design stage. However, the implementation of stricter regulations constantly threatens to override the benefits gained by the flexibility of the VM. To sustain the shorter validation period, and the lower establishment costs of the VM comparative to the CM, a balance between imposed criteria and informality is needed (Bumpus et al., 2010; Lovell, 2010). Aside from validating a project, the standards use third-party verifiers throughout the lifecycle of the project. The process of monitoring the projects on a regular basis to confirm that the outcomes are as they should be falls to the associated standard setting organisation. The verification and monitoring documents compiled can give a realistic view of the project outcomes and will be used as research sources in this study.
1.7 Standards Utilised by Case Projects
The two carbon projects under analysis will be discussed later in this paper but the following sections will describe the carbon standards which were used to validate and verify the projects. The criteria for community benefits are also detailed.
1.7.1 Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) & Climate, Community and
Biodiversity Standards (CCBS)
9
On the other hand, CCBS was second highest in the list of 8, scoring over 90%. Therefore, to receive relevant guidance and ensure a project is measured against criteria which targets socioeconomic benefits, project developers are recommended to use VCS and CCBS in conjunction (Schmidt & Gerber, 2016). Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standards (2017, pp. 33-38) provide a set of criteria for project developers to align with:
1. Describe the original well-being conditions and any changes expected to occur without the project.
2. Demonstrate that the project generates net positive impacts on the communities within the project borders.
3. Identify any problems that may arise and measures needed to mitigate any negative impacts to the well-being of other stakeholders.
4. Implement impact monitoring to assess well-being changes resulting from project activities.
1.7.2 Plan Vivo Standard (PVS)
Conceptualised in 1994 by the Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Management, the University of Edinburgh and other partners, the Plan Vivo Standard provides a certification framework for Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) programmes. The standard aims to ensure that VM projects “benefit livelihoods, enhance ecosystems and protect biodiversity” (Plan Vivo, 2013, p. 2). It covers projects within any country but their guidance is tailored for “projects working with resource-poor rural communities and aim to reduce rural poverty by integrating ecosystem management and livelihood development” (ibid). In the 2016 study referred to in the previous paragraph, Plan Vivo was virtually on par with CCBS for the criteria relating to sustainable development (Schmidt & Gerber, 2016). Of the eight principles guiding PVS, principle number 7 is most relevant to this research paper as it states that projects must provide beneficial socioeconomic impacts. Plan Vivo (2013, p. 20) offers guidance in achieving this:
1. Clearly demonstrate how the project will benefit local people.
2. Define a socioeconomic baseline and describe how this will alter or continue throughout the project lifecycle, considering those outside the project boundaries.
3. Develop a monitoring plan to measure against the socioeconomic baseline.
4. Avoid negative impacts on the project communities and those outside the project boundaries. Report any negative impacts and identify steps to mitigate those impacts.
The following chapter details some of the key topics found in literature relating to the voluntary carbon market. Despite this being a relatively new industry, it is a widely researched and criticised field. A plethora of studies exists but this thesis will cover only the most relevant topics relating to community benefits and forestry and land use projects specifically.
2. Key Issues Found in the Literature on VM
2.1 The responsibility of VM to provide poverty alleviation
10
Alongside many other global mechanisms which promote development and poverty alleviation, the voluntary carbon market has an important role to play. Increasing labour and income diversification are key poverty alleviators which the VM can provide (Lipper & Cavatassi, 2004). Many projects conform to a payment for ecosystem services (PES) approach which involves payments or benefits for land stewards and other beneficiaries for services provided by nature “to encourage ecosystem conservation and restoration” (Milder et al., 2010, p. 1). Such projects have been recognised for their ability to achieve ‘win-win’ scenarios of reducing climate emissions and meeting demands to improve livelihoods of local communities (Lee et al., 2016; Corbera and Brown, 2008; Lipper & Cavatassi, 2004). It is estimated that by 2030, 25 to 50 million low-income households could be exposed to benefits from carbon offsetting projects (Milder et al., 2010). For offsetting projects to provide poverty alleviation, there must be enough demand for carbon reductions globally (Estrada & Corbera, 2012). Local communities can also gain economically from carbon credits in cases where financial compensation is received by those reducing the carbon emissions (Kahrunmaa, 2016). When a project participant is guaranteed a source of income via revenues from carbon credits, Kahrunmaa claims that a sustainable benefit has occurred. It is short-sighted of Kahrunmaa to term this as ‘sustainable’ as it can encourage the local communities to become reliant on the carbon projects for their funding, and if/when the project ends, they will lose this funding. Despite the high potential to assist local communities with carbon credit revenue, there is a severe lack of projects on the VM which ensure this flow of money (Karhunmaa, 2016). In the case of cookstoves, recipients sign contracts and thus “relinquish their property rights to the emissions reductions and the developer secures access to any potential revenue generated through […] trading” (Wang & Corson, 2014, p. 2067). The project developer will generally retain any profits from the sale of carbon credits for research, development and marketing purposes (Kahrunmaa, 2016). However, the question of who receives the carbon credit may vary significantly between project categories (i.e. forestry, household energy technology, renewable energy) and this is determined by the project developer (Lee et al., 2016). Lee and colleagues (2016) suggest that, because carbon payments don’t always make it to the end user, it is beneficial to both the developer and local community to lean on the benefits indirectly related to carbon payments, such as employment and improved healthcare.
Poverty alleviation can come from a boost in the local economy via job opportunities and local production chains (Kahrunmaa, 2016). If local markets can then “function independently of outside assistance and finance” from the project, a sustainable benefit has occurred (ibid, p.76). It may be difficult to ascertain whether a market can exist post-project until the project has ended. To reach the two objectives, or the win-win outcome, of improved livelihoods and climate change mitigation, there are trade-offs that may be required (Lee et al., 2016; Benessaiah, 2012). The local communities involved in the project need to consider the level of food-security, the demand of time and work, and the relative returns from their investments (Lipper & Cavatassi, 2004; Pagiola et al., 2004). Environmental protection and poverty alleviation goals do not always align (Adams et al., 2004), and this mismatch can lead to undesirable outcomes for communities and biodiversity. The next section will discuss some of the consequences that occur following such failures.
2.2 Exacerbating Inequalities
Despite the potential for offsetting projects to create socio-ecological benefits for the poor, many academics argue that they can, in fact, have quite the opposite effect (Lipper & Cavatassi, 2004; Benessaiah, 2012). Sources show that transparent and secure land-tenure is necessary to enable inclusion in the projects (Benessaiah, 2012; Lipper & Cavatassi, 2004). Resource allocation and turning land into carbon sinks in return for PES (Payment for Ecosystem Services) is a contentious issue requiring clarification of landownership and has oftentimes led to exclusion and conflict (Corbera et
al., 2011; Benessaiah, 2012; Peskett et al., 2011; Grieg-Gran et al., 2005). Moreover, increasing value
11
land rights” exists (Howard et al., 2015, p. 346). Carton & Andersson (2017, p.832) label carbon offsetting as “one of the most fiercely contested issues in climate policy debates” due to its linkages to land grabbing and displacement of local communities (Cavanagh & Benjaminsen, 2014). In 1993, one Ugandan VM offset project reportedly displaced over 150,000 people to make way for reforestation during the upgrade of Mount Elgon Forest Park to a National Park (Vangen, 2009; Cavanagh & Benjaminsen, 2014). Communities lost their homes and access to any shared resources. Lack of tenure made the situation complex and resulted in difficulty proving that the evictions were illegal. No compensation was ever provided. The benefit for project developers in this case was that the removal of communities exposed an immaculate landscape, prime for mediation and spectacular accumulation (Cavanagh & Benjaminsen, 2014). Needless to say, the information regarding the violent displacements was never included in any marketing material (ibid). Projects which focus on biodiversity protection can also exacerbate poverty with the eviction of communities to create a protected area (Adams et al., 2004). It can be said that these negative impacts were more prevalent when credits were being consumed without too much thought into the production process.
There are concerns about what happens to the project participants following the cessation of a project. Tree plantation schemes have been known to leave the farmer unemployed at the end of the project, and an increase in wages during the project does “not address the long-term needs of a household or contribute to long-term poverty alleviation” (Lee et al., 2016, p. 105). Another issue to be noted is the impact of introducing long-term carbon sequestration strategies to local communities, reducing their ability to handle shocks and adapt to climate change (Benessaiah, 2012; Palmer & Silber, 2011). Unfortunately, this is the opposite of what a PES should do in an ideal marketplace: “improving resilience to environmental and economic shifts” (Milder et al., 2010, p.1).
Cases of local communities missing out on promised carbon payments are common (Lee et al., 2016). For instance, beyond the initial stages of the Ugandan Trees for Global Benefits offsetting project, farmers were unable to meet their objectives and reach their targets to receive payment due to the “rigorous implementation of the technical specification(s) and the carbon contract” (Carton & Andersson, 2017, p.837). Lack of clarity and changing benchmarks is a consistent issue (Carton & Andersson, 2017). There are also instances where the buyer has pulled out in the final stages and the local communities received no payments and understood very little of the matter (Lee et al., 2016). Without the involvement of the local communities, such projects risk being unable to meet requirements for both co-benefits and carbon reduction (Lee et al., 2016). The next section addresses the importance of stakeholder involvement for the success of a project and conveys how communities often hold limited power.
2.3 Asymmetrical Power
The carbon market is notably asymmetrical with most of the power belonging to developers (Lee et al., 2016; Benessaiah, 2012; Wang & Corson, 2014). To take part in a project, local communities must be approached or have adequate social connections and possess a “significant knowledge investment […] beyond the reach of local farmers” (Lee et al., 2016, p. 102). They are often unable to research or choose carbon developers, investors, and their own legal rights (Peskett et al., 2011). The research of Wang & Corson (2014, p. 2075) shows that oftentimes project participants have “little or no knowledge about climate change and carbon markets”. Initial consultation phases are often low priority or are orchestrated badly (Peskett et al., 2011). On becoming involved in a project, it is common that communities do not know when they will be paid, or even why they are receiving that payment (Lee et
al., 2016). Contracts between local communities and developers or buyers can be confusing or even
12
reported that the demands of buyers are considered over those of the communities (Peskett et al., 2011). Carbon buyers are in the position to make decisions about when they buy carbon credits, how many, and at what price. Since 47% of credits in 2016 were left unsold when buyers could not be secured (Hamrick & Gallant, 2017), developers may begin look to the demand side of the market to see how they can accommodate their needs.
A lack of knowledge sharing between communities and project developers can be problematic. Communicating on global, national and local scales often calls for social capital and opportunity for interaction (Yaffee et al., 1997). A platform for local communities to participate at higher scales is important for environmental justice within markets (Lee et al., 2016). Local institutions can play a vital role in assisting smallholders in challenging and negotiating with organisations at a national or international level (Milder et al., 2010). It is not just top-down knowledge sharing that has implications on the success of a project. Actors on a higher scale need to be informed of the social and ecological conditions on the local scales for substantiated decision making and ‘win-win’ situations to occur (Lee
et al., 2016; Cash et al., 2006). Without this integration, long-term failures such as “leakage, conflict
and impermanence” will arise “since root causes of carbon emissions remain unaddressed” (Benessaisah, 2012, p. 4). Social capital and community cooperation can benefit developers by reducing transaction costs (Lipper & Cavatassi, 2004).
Stakeholder consultations are mandatory under some of the standards to allow local communities to play a part in defining the co-benefits of a project (Howard et al., 2015). Research shows, however, that the design phases of many projects were “notably devoid of diverse measures of engagement” with stakeholders (Suiseeya & Caplow, 2013, p. 973). This indicates that the standards are perhaps not as diligent with this aspect during the validation process (ibid). Without the consultation and participation of all affected parties in decision-making, procedural justice is not met, despite it being a vital component of conservation and development projects (Suiseeya & Caplow, 2013
2.4 Creating Value
On the VM, the price of a carbon credit is set by the developers (Peskett et al., 2011), but the market can be volatile (Howard et al., 2015) and heavily influenced by the carbon buyer. The price of a credit varies greatly from one project to the next and this is justified by the value presumed to be added by the projects. The need to create a perceived value for the consumer is increased due to the intangibility of carbon credits (Wang & Corson, 2014).
Using the standards to validate a project generates legitimacy and decreases the likelihood of consumers questioning the destination of their investment. Consumers need a constant guarantee that their financial investment has integrity and is going to a bona fide project (Cavanagh & Benjaminsen, 2014). It is clear to see how much value is created by certain standards when comparing the average 2008 price of a VM credit accredited by the Gold Standard ($US14.40) with the average price of a credit accredited by another set of standards (US$7.34). The price is almost doubled. This can be directly attributed to the Gold Standard’s “stringent sustainable development criteria” (Lovell, 2010, p.359) and “providing assurance that investments support environmental integrity” (Howard et al., 2015, p. 344).
The intangibility of carbon credits on the VM means increased value perception is required (Wang & Corson, 2014). Co-benefits can significantly increase the price of each credit and attract the consumer (Karhunmaa, 2016). Personal objectives to improve the daily lives of others, or the extent to which a business is looking to improve their public perception can steer the price of a credit. Lovell & Liverman (2010, p. 260) state that “certain carbon credits are attractive because they have a story associated with them and can be sold at a premium as ‘gourmet’ or ‘boutique’ carbon with an emphasis on their poverty-alleviation ‘side benefits’”.
13
to link capital and far-off places ‘spectacular accumulation’. Such framing makes the case that there is help required for those in need, and the offset market provides a convenient mechanism to allow for this (Igoe, 2010). Framing a project as successful is also vital (Wang & Corson, 2014). If it comes to light that there is an extensive gap between how the project is portrayed and how it is implemented, as happened with Mount Elgon National Park, the project can fail (Cavanagh & Benjaminsen, 2014). If credits for a project fail to sell, both project developer and local communities can miss out on necessary funds (Lee et al, 2016).
2.5 Chapter Summary
Based on the key findings detailed in this chapter, it is clear that carbon offsetting projects on the VM have in important role in global poverty alleviation. Oftentimes, the projects are failing to live up to their potential to do so, and can even make the situation worse for local communities. The literature exposes a severe power asymmetry, almost always putting the local people at a disadvantage. Improving the livelihoods of project participants is oftentimes a vital link between a project and the international market. Additionally, we see a direct connection between the price of a carbon credit and the extent of benefits received by the community. This price can be increased by presenting a community in need of assistance which shows it is often beneficial for a project developer to implement a project in an area with an existing impoverished community. Important to this thesis is the noted variation in who receives the carbon revenues, i.e. local communities, project developers or governments. This could impact the community livelihoods through more immediate benefits for local people but also cause them to become more reliant on the projects. The findings of this thesis should determine the existence of a ‘win-win’ scenario referred to in several studies listed in this chapter. Additionally, the literature discusses the many forms of potential poverty alleviation a carbon offset project can provide, but it is notable how frequently this potential is not reached. In fact, some projects appear to worsen situations for local communities. The negative impact of long-term sequestration strategies on the resilience of project participants is an applicable concern to both project under analysis in this thesis. There are many studies based on community impacts through the life-cycle of a project, but the gap in research considering the futures of local people is significantly large. Only one study (Lee et al., 2016) directly addressed this and only in the case of a tree planting project. The in-depth literature review reinforces the importance of this study as a way to gain insight into the livelihood benefits provided by offsetting projects, and as a way to shift focus to the futures of participants post-project.
The next chapter details how livelihood improvements can be benchmarked and considered sustainable or otherwise. The two approaches which are utilised to frame the research and analysis phases of this thesis will also be discussed.
3
.
Conceptualising Livelihoods
Despite the fact that ‘sustainable development’ is a noted criterion within a number of carbon offsetting standards, individual countries are given the final say on the definition of the term (Lipper & Cavatassi, 2004). There is no internationally agreed upon definition for sustainable development and it varies greatly between countries (Dirix et al, 2016). Furthermore, as noted above, the carbon standards have varying levels of social sustainability criteria and project developers can pick and choose a favourable set of standards for validation. A project’ s claim to achieve poverty reductions is made during the design stage which makes evaluating this target difficult as there is not always sufficient post verification to measure this (Dirix et al., 2016). It is problematic to measure the livelihood benefits experienced by the project communities as there is no specific scale or benchmark. Therefore, the
sustainable livelihoods approach and the sustainable rural livelihoods approach are used as described
14
3.1 Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA)
When framing the interview questions and throughout the research phase of the study, the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA) was used as a guiding framework. The SLA was conceptualised and enhanced throughout the 1980s and 1990s. It can be used as a way to understand the complexities of society and as a way to determine the permanence or sustainability of human well-being in specific cases (Morse & McNamara, 2013). It refers to the capital and assets of a community, such as access to natural resources, social equity, stability of income (Elasha et al., 2005). It also assesses the vulnerability of a community in terms of adaptability and coping mechanisms relating to shocks and stresses (Morse & McNamara, 2013; Elasha et al., 2005). As this is a qualitative study, the SLA is not used as a method of measurement, but more as a way to contextualise the research. The SLA has received critique for its limited emphasis on people and its quantitative approach said to focus too much on statistics and numbers rather than culture (Elasha et al., 2005). Moreover, the detail required to benchmark the SLA is best suited to a participatory research method. Therefore, throughout the analysis phase, the Sustainable Rural Livelihoods approach is used instead.
3.2 Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Approach (SRLA)
This framework was set out in 1998 by Scoones who reasoned that livelihood resources should be analysed alongside the institutional and organisational structures to assess the ability of sustainable livelihood outcomes to occur. In order to pursue sustainable livelihoods strategies there must be a certain level of assets possessed by the villages in question. Scoones (1998, pp. 7-8) draws on an economic metaphor and defines these assets as four different types of 'capital'. This thesis aims to gauge the levels of the following assets possessed by the participating communities: Natural capital such as the stocks of natural resources and environmental services, as well as access to them; financial capital such as cash, equipment, infrastructure and other economic assets; human capital such as skills, knowledge, and the ability to pursue certain activities; social capital such as cooperatives, networks and associations. These assets will then indicate how well the communities can meet the following sustainable livelihood outcomes (Scoones, 1998, pp. 5-7):
1. Creation of working days - the creation of gainful employment for a certain portion of the year. This includes the generation of income as well as the subsistence production levels.
2. Poverty reduction - Using both quantitative and qualitative measures, one can assess the poverty level and measure against a baseline
3. Well-being and capabilities - both the human capital and intrinsically valued elements such as "self-esteem, security, happiness, stress, vulnerability, power, exclusion, as well as more conventionally measured material concerns"
4. Adaption & resilience - the ability of the village to cope with and recover from shocks and also manage their stocks of natural resources.
An ample amount of livelihood resources (capital) can improve the ability to pursue sustainable livelihoods. However, it is necessary to consider the different social structures and unique processes that enable or inhibit this pursuit. Understanding "institutional practices, rules and norms" and the power relations which are "embedded within institutional forms" (Scoones, 1998, p. 12) is key to identifying the barriers and opportunities for local communities. The two carbon offsetting projects under analysis do not occur within a vacuum and it will be imperative to consider the featuring institutions and organisations when analysing the findings.
15
4. Methodology & Methods
4.1 Introduction
This thesis will present two REDD+ projects as cases for analysis. The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach will be the guiding framework for the interview questions, and the Rural Sustainable Livelihoods approach will be utilised in the analysis phase. Different cases were selected to “show different perspectives on the issue” as it is important not to generalise from one case as contexts can differ greatly (Creswell, 2013, p. 74). The Alto Mayo project is located in northern Peru and the Yaeda Valley project is located in northern Tanzania. The cases were selected for their similarities (both are REDD+ projects in developing countries which claim to benefit local communities), and also because of their differences (approaches, funding mechanisms, country context etc). This mixture of similarities and differences makes the projects suitable for comparison and should lead to a greater understanding of which approaches have worked best and which have not. This is an embedded analysis as it looks at specific aspects of the case, focusing primarily on community benefits rather than carbon sequestration levels, for example (Creswell, 2013; Yin, 2003). To gain a more holistic view of specific aspects, data pertaining to each case will be gathered from each case. This type of qualitative research is appropriate as it can “provide an in-depth understanding of the cases or a comparison of several cases” (Creswell, 2013, p. 74). It is important to keep the number of cases small as this thesis involves a deep and detailed analysis of each project. Any more than two projects would have been unmanageable within the time constraints. The next section details the interviews, reports, documents and other sources of data that will be collected and for analysis.
4.2 Data Collection
4.2.1 Project Design Documents (PDD)
For these cases, the anticipated social impacts of the projects outlined in the project design documents (PDDs) were reviewed and defined. PDDs, or Project Descriptions are compiled by the project developer as a way to show that criteria set out by the standards organisation will be met. The overall aim of the document is to receive approval from validators to proceed with the project. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the projects will be implemented as set out in the PDD (Lambe et al., 2015). Thus, a critical stance was taken when reviewing these documents.
4.2.2 Semi Structured Interviews
16
Mayo Protected Forest Project Director from CI-Peru, and Jo Anderson, Carbon Tanzania Director were both selected based on their high level of participation in the development phase of the project, and the continued involvement in the projects. The semi-structured interview questions were designed based on the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach.
Interviews were conducted using Alvesson’s (2013) localist perspective which is best suited to a semi-structured interview with a “social construction of situated accounts” (Qu & Dumay, 2011, p. 240). Both interviewer and interviewee had good knowledge in the subject area of carbon offsetting, so it was difficult for the interview to be without a certain level of bias or presumptions. It must be understood that the interviewee may have certain motives behind their answers, such as conveying a positive image of their organisation, and the context must always be considered. The fact that the subject may be swayed by the agenda or politics within their organisation is a concern to be highlighted (Qu & Dumay, 2011; Alvesson, 2003). Building trust can “reduce the risk of attaining politically-guided interview accounts” (Qu & Dumay, 2011, p. 256). To build trust throughout the interview, posed questions must be understandable to the interviewee and the interviewer must respond tactful, conveying understanding of the interviewee’s worldviews (ibid). The rapport building will begin during the introduction phase, in which the interviewer explains the purpose of the interview and confirms being happy to go ahead and will continue to the final debrief port-interview (Kvale, 1996). This paper does not use a structured theoretical or conceptual framework as this type of interview works best when “the interviewer tries to remain open to new and unforeseen phenomenon rather than imposing ready-made frameworks or categories” (Qu & Dumay, 2011, p. 243). Both the interviews and PDDs were subsequently compared with the evaluation documents created by third-party validators and outside sources to check for validity.
4.2.3 Verification & Monitoring document
In both cases, verification and monitoring documents were used to compare the perceived impacts and the actual outcomes relating to sustainable livelihoods. The documents were created by the organisations leading the development of the projects. These evaluation documents were strictly scrutinised regarding their explicit and implicit assumptions as well as evaluation criteria applied. Alto Mayo Verification & Monitoring Report was created as part of the verification process which must be performed at least every five years. A third-party verifier then has the task of ensuring the project meets the below criteria based on the report, observations and interviews.
1. Community Impacts
a. Negative Impact mitigation b. Community well-being
c. Protection of High conservation values 2. Other Stakeholder Impacts
a. Mitigation of negative impacts on other stakeholders b. Net Impacts on other stakeholders
3. Community Impact Monitoring a. Monitoring plan
b. Monitoring plan dissemination 4. Exceptional Community benefits
a. Short- and long-term benefits
b. Marginalized and vulnerable community groups c. Net impacts for women
d. Benefit sharing mechanisms
17
The Yaeda Valley Verification & Monitoring Report was created as part of an annual verification process. A third-party verifier then has the task of ensuring the below questions are answered satisfactorily based on the report, observations and interviews.
1. Does the project continue to comply with the requirements of the Plan Vivo Standard? 2. Have project activities been carried out as planned in the PDD and as reported in project annual reports?
3. Have project activities contributed to generating the project’s overall climate benefits to the extent expected?
4. Have the emissions reductions (climate benefits) generated by the project been made in accordance with those estimated in the project’s Technical Specifications?
5. To what extent has the project generated expected livelihoods and biodiversity benefits? 6. Have any new project activity types or significant changes to project design (activities, procedures or monitoring protocols) as recorded in project annual reports and updates to the PDD been effectively implemented in compliance with the Plan Vivo Standard?
(Plan Vivo, 2013, p. 2)
4.3.4 Outside sources
A deep online search was conducted to find sources which either supported or contradicted what the already gathered data has shown. News articles, community social media pages, already existing research and other sourced were gathered. This search was mostly conducted via Google using search terms related to the project locations, the communities, the project developers and REDD+. These search terms were then paired with terms such as ‘critique’ or ‘conflict’ for a more focused search. Facebook was used in an attempt to locate community social media pages. Using ‘Alto Mayo’ and ‘Yaeda Valley’ as search terms within websites such as Mongabay (https://news.mongabay.com/) and REDD Monitor (https://redd-monitor.org/) produced a number of opinion articles.
4.3 Data Analysis
In the following chapter, the information gained from the aforementioned interviews and documents is analysed to compare the social impacts anticipated by project developers with those actually observed by evaluators. Granted that the evaluations are deemed to have reasonable levels of validity and reliability, it will then be possible to assess the level of social sustainability achieved within the cases of carbon offsetting project studied, addressing the shortfalls and failures where relevant. The project design documents and monitoring documents were ross-referenced with their third-party verification documents to assess how accurate the project developers were at reporting. The results of this were then analysed to test if livelihood impacts anticipated by project developers aligned with actual outcomes.
18
4.4 Ethics
In consideration of an ethical approach, informed consent was obtained from each interviewee following an explanation of how the data would be used. Both interviewees agreed to have their names and any statements made by them published. Providing the interviewee with “prior knowledge of the researcher’s intent” can sometimes “cloud the subject’s response” (Qu & Dumay, 2011, p. 253). In this case, as the aim of the research is to assist the project developers (interviewees) in designing projects with stronger co-benefits, exposing the intent of the research should only work to enhance trust between participants. It should have no negative effects on the integrity of the interview and should not cause any bias.
4.5 Delimitations
The 2020 covid-19 pandemic restricted this thesis somewhat. Ideally, participatory research would have been conducted. Face-to-face interviews with the communities would have delivered further insight into the project and its benefits. Participatory research is especially important for a European researcher when working with non-western or indigenous communities. There is a strong probability that the researcher will impose their assumptions and views on the research and interpret “indigenous knowledge from a Western framework, effectively distorting reality” (Cochran et al., 2008, p. 23). At the time of planning the research, both projects were unable to host a visit to the communities due to financial constraints and unsuitable weather conditions. The projects are located in difficult to reach rural areas. To overcome this, other projects were to be selected with the possibility of visitation, however Corona travel restrictions were implemented and no visits were possible. Considerations were initially given to asking the project developer to arrange an interview with a community member. However, language barriers made that unfeasible. Moreover, if the community representative was selected by the project developer, that person may have been trained in certain responses and would not have been unhindered. This thesis relied on available documents and two interviews with project developers, one from each project, to answer the research questions. These were the limits within which this research had to operate. Even so, information was obtained insights were gained of considerable relevance to the research questions raised at the outset.
5. Alto Mayo, Peru, and Yaeda Valley, Tanzania: Two Cases
of Livelihood Impacts from Carbon Offsetting Projects
The two cases selected to be the focus of this thesis are both REDD+ projects. The Alto Mayo project is located in northern Peru and the Yaeda Valley project is located in northern Tanzania. This section will introduce both cases and the outline the entities involved in the projects
.
5.1 Alto Mayo Conservation Initiative
The Alto Mayo project located in the San Martín region of the Peruvian Amazon covers an area of 182,000 hectares of forest. The forests within the region store a significant amount of carbon, and its soils are important for the ecosystem. The region of San Martín has experienced the highest levels of deforestation in Peru (Valqui, et al., 2015) for a number of reasons. It is the country’s biggest producer of agriculture and has one of the most established economies in the Amazon (ibid). The cultivation of crops such as rice, banana, coffee and maize led to extensive deforestation and as agriculture accounts for 6.89% of Peru’s GDP (Statista, 2020), the state supported and exploited this behaviour (Valqui, et
al., 2015). The rising price of coffee encouraged the development of further coffee plantations and
19
coca boom and the development of the Marginal Highway in the 1980s (Shanee et al., 2015), partnered with the ever-increasing mining-restrictions and population growth in the Andes (Shanee, 2019) led to migration from the latter to the prior. The development of this highway improved accessibility to the remote region, increasing logging and, therefore, deforestation (Valqui, et al., 2015). In 1987, aiming to protect the area, the Peruvian Government gave Alto Mayo a protected forest status. However, due to lack of funding to control the area and sustained migration levels to the region, the Alto Mayo Protected Forest (AMPF) remained one of the most extensively deforested Natural Protected Areas (NPA) in Peru (VCS Project Description, Conservation International, 2015).
The Alto Mayo Conservation Initiative (AMCI) was established by Conservation International Foundation (CI) to address some of these concerns and promote sustainable forest management in the area. The REDD (Reducing Emissions form Deforestation and Forest Degradation) mechanism was utilised to “give the forest an economic value that competes with alternative uses of the land”, namely unsustainable coffee production (Conservation International, 2015, p. 6). The aim was to introduce more sustainable coffee production techniques into the area, increase local awareness of harmful practices and address the relationship between local people and other institutions.
The five main objectives of the project were:
“(I) improving the governance and enforcement capabilities of the AMPF local Head Office
(II) promoting sustainable land use practices that will reduce deforestation and forest degradation within and beyond the AMPF’s boundaries through the signing of Conservation Agreements with local communities;
(III) promoting a change in the perception of the local population towards the importance of the AMPF by increasing its environmental awareness and involvement in the conservation of the Protected Area;
(IV) ensuring the long-term sustainability of the AMCI by creating long-term financial mechanisms through carbon financing and other PES schemes; and (V) integrating the AMPF in the broader policy agenda at the local, regional and national level.”
(Conservation International, 2012, p. 14)
To improve the protection and conservation of the NPA, CI enlisted the help of the local communities, mostly immigrants from the Andes. To increase their vigilance in monitoring and reporting illegal activities, and encourage the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices, CI offered certain benefits. Conservation Agreements (CAs) were signed by the AMPF Head Office and local community members, known as subscribers. Participation in “training sessions, reforestation campaigns, and surveillance activities” as well as reporting illegal activities and settlements would be rewarded with some of the following:
• Regular technical assistance in organic coffee production
• Organic fertilisers, equipment and tools to improve their coffee growing practices • Paid salaries for patrolling and other conservation activities
• Access to coffee and native tree seedlings grown in tree nurseries (Conservation International, 2012, p. 17)
5.1.1 Involved Entities
The Shampuyacu community
