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

face a choice and dilemma in terms of working with (and potentially reinforcing) existing social
structures and traditional norms, or pushing for more transformational social change.
Costs and benefits of carbon projects may affect households and segments of rural society differently.
As noted above, in the case of expanded woodlots in Uganda the costs of restricted access or production
may fall more heavily on poor households that rely on customary use of land or forests. The distribution
of project benefits depends in large part on who participates. Eligibility requirements for participation,
such as minimum landholding size, credit, or formal property rights, may exclude the poorest rural
people—including smallholders and landless—from taking part in carbon projects and their benefits
(Tacconi et al. 2009; Grieg-Gran et al. 2005). 19
For example, the PROFAFOR carbon sequestration project in Ecuador set the minimum plot size at 50
hectares, thus excluding some poor smallholders from participating (Wunder 2008). In the TFGB project
in Uganda, “the availability of land and capital” of local farmers was seen as a determining factor for
participation, and smallholders without idle land faced the difficult decision of planting trees for carbon
forestry or cultivating food crops (German et al. 2009). Likewise, evidence from some PES schemes
shows that requirements for participation led to benefits being channeled largely to the already
20
relatively well-off. Selective enrollment or the concentration of carbon benefits may lead to jealousies
and grievances among non-participants, and negatively affect intra-community relations and the local
standing of the project (Wunder 2008).
Project Design and the ‘Rules of the Game’
The social outcomes and impacts generated vary according to the design and context of each project as
well as the differences between and within communities. Specifically, each project’s policies and
governance (its ‘rules of the game’) are key determining factors. 21
They include types of compensation,
how local stakeholders participate in project governance, modes and rates of payment, risk
arrangements, and eligibility requirements for participation. Benefit sharing systems can strengthen or
19
The willingness, ability, or eligibility people to participate in carbon projects may be affected by a variety of legal,
economic, socio-cultural, and ecological factors (Jindal 2010; Pagiola et al. 2004; and Grieg-Gran et al. 2005).A
review of eight case studies of PES schemes in Africa, Asia, and Latin America concluded that poorer households
were allowed access to the schemes, but land tenure was often a constraint to participation (Tacconi et al. 2009).
On the other hand, Bond et al. (2009) found that small-scale farmers with informal land tenure have been able to
participate in some PES schemes.
20
A case study of the Costa Rican national PES system found that in one watershed a large number of participants
were relatively well-off, and derived more than half their total income from outside the farm (Grieg-Gran et al.
2005). The initial failure of Costa Rica’s PES scheme to involve poorer farmers and land users (who held no formal
land titles) led the country to develop specific measures to lower or remove barriers to participation (Bond et al.
2009).
21
National policies and governance as well as the international climate regime are also determining factors of
these ‘rules’.
Social Impact Assessment of Land-Based Carbon Projects (1.0) – Part II | 89