manual for social impact assessment of land-based ... - Forest Trends

TOOLBOX AREA 3: SUPPORT MATERIALS
T8 Review and Typology of Social Outcomes, Impacts, and Change
Processes
Introduction
To date there have been a limited number of case studies on the social outcomes and impacts of landbased
carbon projects. A major shortcoming of these studies is that they rely on anecdotal evidence,
and most empirical evidence is limited (Jindal 2010). Nonetheless, limited research results show that
where REDD+ projects have made concerted efforts to target poor and marginalized groups, they have
provided positive, albeit marginal livelihood benefits for local people. While little evidence has been
presented to date on the adverse effects of REDD+, there are potential risks, opportunity costs, and
negative outcomes.
The considerable literature on PES projects sheds some light on how carbon projects can affect the
social welfare of local participants and non-participants (Peskett et al. 2008). 10 The PES literature
generally considers a narrow range of social impact criteria, focusing primarily on the degree to which
poor people participate as buyers and sellers of environmental services, and whether as sellers the poor
become better off financially. 11
The empirical evidence on the social welfare impacts of PES (including
carbon projects) in developing countries remains limited both because these schemes are relatively
recent, and little systematic data about social conditions ‘with and without PES’ have been produced
(Wunder 2008). While direct evidence of the effect of PES projects on livelihoods is limited, studies
nonetheless indicate that they commonly produce small and modest positive benefits for communities,
principally through increased cash income (Bond et al. 2009; Tacconi et al. 2009; Grieg-Gran et al. 2005).
At the same time, there is little evidence from PES experiences to support concerns that they will
exacerbate poverty (Bond et al. 2009).
Benefits of PES schemes and carbon projects can be divided into monetary and non-monetary benefits.
While income from cash payments and/or employment is perhaps the livelihood benefit that is most
commonly quantified and cited in case studies, the non-monetary benefits that participants receive can
be equally important (Wunder 2008). For example, non-income benefits were seen as an important
factor in securing the participation of local people in carbon forestry PES schemes in Mexico and Uganda
that offered relatively small monetary payments (Martin 2010).
10 This literature is relevant because carbon projects are among the PES schemes studied, and most carbon
projects have some element of a PES mechanism for providing local communities with incentives and
compensation (Grieg-Gran et al. 2005; Angelsen & Wunder 2003).
11 Most studies focus on social outcomes and impacts on-site or near projects rather than far ‘downstream’.
However, the greatest welfare benefits of carbon projects may accrue to users at the regional, national, or global
levels, and thus the primary means of providing social welfare benefits for the poor could be to ensure that
projects effectively and efficiently deliver the service they offer (Wunder 2008; Angelsen & Wunder 2003).
Social Impact Assessment of Land-Based Carbon Projects (1.0) – Part II | 81