Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Master thesis in Sustainable Development 2020/52 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
I N S T I T U T I O N E N F Ö R
G E O V E T E N S K A P E R
Master thesis in Sustainable Development 2020/52 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
Supervisor: Steffen Boehm
Subject Reviewer: Lars Rudebeck
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
5. Alto Mayo, Peru, and Yaeda Valley, Tanzania: Two Cases of Livelihood Impacts from Carbon
Offsetting Projects .............................................................................................................................. 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
FIGURES
Fig. 1. Offset Cycle (Hamrick & Gallant, 2017, p. 2)............................................................................. 7
iv
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
Laura Tapping, Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Villavägen 16, SE- 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden
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
Laura Tapping, Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Villavägen 16, SE- 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden
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 Change
VCS Verified Carbon Standard
VER Verified Emissions Reductions
VM Voluntary (Carbon) Market
YV Yaeda Valley
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
The aim of this thesis is to shed light on the impacts of voluntary carbon offsetting projects on the
livelihoods of affected communities and evaluate how the communities will fare post-project. Against
a thorough background on the issue of carbon offsetting, the conceptualisation of livelihoods, and the
use of case studies, this will be done by focusing on the impacts on communities within the boundaries
of two specific projects. Benefits to livelihoods will be assessed, and it will be considered how
sustainable improvements (if any) are and how likely the community is to prosper once the project ends.
The Alto Mayo Conservation Initiative in Peru was developed by American NGO, Conservation
International, in 2008. The Yaeda Valley REDD Project was development by Carbon Tanzania, a
registered Tanzania non-profit, in 2013. The Alto Mayo and Yaeda Valley projects are categorised as
forestry and land use projects and use the REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest
Degradation) mechanism to generate carbon offset credits for sale on the voluntary carbon market. Both
projects’ developers claim to have provided many benefits for the project communities, improving their
livelihoods greatly. This research paper will explore the impacts stated by the developers and compare
them with reality by using third-party verification and monitoring documents and outside sources. From
this, an understanding of the barriers preventing increased levels of community benefits will be gained,
and suggestions for project developers to enhance their design so as to increase the projects’ social
sustainability impacts will be made. The following research questions will be addressed:
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.
The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and the voluntary carbon market were developed in the
late 1990s driven by the “commitments made by industrialised countries that have ratified the Kyoto
Protocol and thereby agreed to reduce emissions” (Lovell & Liverman, 2010, p.257). In 2005, it became
compulsory for some high polluting industries to offset the amount of carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases (GHG) released through production and other means. Thus, the compliance market
(CM) emerged (Wang & Corson, 2014). Projects such as wind farms and reforestation schemes were
developed as mechanisms for companies to purchase carbon credits. A ‘carbon credit’ represents the
right to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide or equivalents (CO2e). One carbon credit purchased
on the carbon market is equivalent to offsetting (or compensating for) one metric tonne of CO2e. Carbon
offsetting gained further momentum with the introduction of the Paris Agreement of 2015 which set a
target for a rise of no greater than 2°C in global average temperatures (Gehring & Phillips, 2016).
Utilising the CDM, organisations could offset their GHG emissions in attempts to mitigate the effects
of global warming, and at the same time encourage sustainable development in developing countries.
Project host countries are usually those with a lower GDP and oftentimes have more pressing priorities
than climate protection, such as poverty, health and unemployment. Under Article 12 of the Kyoto
Protocol, however, a CDM project should assist such countries in “achieving sustainable development
and in contributing to the ultimate objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC)” (Gehring & Phillips, 2016, p.1). Outside of the CM, or running parallel, is the
voluntary market (VM). The VM developed alongside the initial compliance market as individuals and
organisations outside of the required sectors elected to compensate for their CO2 emissions. As with
the CDM, projects on the VM have potential to go beyond the direct climate mitigation effects that they
are assumed to provide. Added socio-economic impacts such as job creation, improved education and
increased levels of healthcare can be provided. These ‘co-benefits’ (Hamrick & Gallant, 2017) support
local communities and biodiversity within and around the project boundaries. Involvement in the VM
can “increase stocks of natural, social, and human capital at the household and community level while
improving resilience to environmental and economic shifts” (Milder et al., 2010, p. 7). This paper will
focus solely on the VM as it has greater potential to provide social sustainability outcomes than the CM.
The CM is heavily controlled by international regulations and most funding comes through private
sector or the World Bank. The VM, on the other hand, has been labelled as a space for innovation and
experiments for new technology due to the lack of formalities (Bumpus et al., 2010). Next follows a
description of the voluntary market as it is today, with initial considerations of its potential to provide
sustainable livelihood benefits.
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:
Phase I—Readiness: Development of national strategies or action plans, policies and measures,
and capacity-building
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
Countries receive donor support towards implementation of a program once the country begins to
demonstrate "initial results in readiness implementation, strong government ownership in REDD+
objectives, and participatory and inclusive stakeholder engagement" (Forest Carbon Partnership
Facility, 2016, p.25). These funds come from various sources. Both Tanzania and Peru receive money
from the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), made up of governments, businesses, civil society
and Indigenous Peoples (NDC Partnership, 2020). The funds are managed by the World Bank and were
set up in 2008 to assist developing countries in their REDD+ efforts. The FCPF Readiness Fund
supports monitoring and reporting, and the adoption of national REDD+ strategies, while the FCPF
Carbon Fund provides performance-based payments to help countries achieve sustainable forest
conservation. Other payments were made to the countries to support the "implementation of emission
reductions programs" (Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, 2016, p. 26). Peru reported receipts of
roughly US$2m from Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, US$4m from the Government of Germany
and US$1m from UN-REDD; Tanzania received US17m from the Government of Norway (ibid). Nine
pilot projects were launched in Tanzania in 2009 as part of the nesting process based on a 5-year
guaranteed funding from Norway. Once this funding ended, most of these projects failed to generate
revenue through the sale of carbon credits (Agarwal et al., 2018).
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
Project developers have an integral role in the carbon market today. Besides designing and initiating
the project, they link carbon credit producers, or those who are selling the carbon credit, with the buyers.
They ensure that the carbon is sequestered and accounted for as required, and that sellers are compliant
(Lee et al., 2016). Before the commencement of financial input from buyers on the carbon market, a
cash injection is required to develop the project and progress with third-party validation. The project
developer may be the primary investor, or they may liaise with relevant investors and donors to secure
funding (ibid). Although some projects are developed by or have substantial input from NGOs, most
projects are developed by for-profit businesses and social entrepreneurs with strong networks in the
sector (Benessaiah, 2012; Lambe et al., 2015). Once a project is ready for the market, the developer
will then seek a buyer. Oftentimes, they will market the project directly to the end user (organisations
or individuals looking to offset their carbon footprint), or sell to a broker or retailer who will become
accountable for the sale to the end user (Hamrick & Gallant, 2017). Developers decide upon the market
price of the credits, and the execution of and beneficiary of each project (Lee et al., 2016; Pesket et al.,
2011). All offsets are listed on registries, such as American Carbon Registry and California Climate
Action Registry. Once the credit has been sold to the end user it must be earmarked by the developer
or seller as retired to avoid reselling (Hamrick & Gallant, 2017). Fig. 1 outlines the offset cycle from
the project design stage through to the retirement phase.
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
labour were some of the criticisms raised by NGOs at the time (Lovell, 2010). In their paper, Lovell &
Liverman (2010, p. 260) noted that, at the time of publication, there was “a much less extensive
governance system to measure, verify and audit voluntary carbon credits” when compared to the CM.
In fact, prior to the publication of those papers, the industry had already “witnessed an explosion in the
number of voluntary standards that have emerged to sustain the market” (Bumpus et al., 2010). Since
2006, standards have been an important function of the VM as a way of “refuting criticisms on
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)
The Verified Carbon Standard was founded by Verra, a not-for-profit organisation, in 2005 as a way to
standardise methodologies and performance benchmarks on the VM (Verra, 2017). The initial VCS
steering committee was made up of The Climate Group, International Emissions Trading Association
and the World Economic Forum In 2014. Verra took on full management of the Climate, Community
and Biodiversity Standards (CCBS) which can now be used in conjunction with VCS, or as a standalone
standard. The VCS standards alone do not strongly emphasise community benefits. In a 2016 study,
VCS scored an extremely low rating (less than 5%) for the criterion “human and community rights,
stakeholder participation and sustainable community development” (Schmidt & Gerber, 2016, p. 23).
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
Project funding and carbon credit revenues typically originate in the global north and most projects are
situated in the global south. Because of this, carbon offsetting falls into the discourse of development
and poverty alleviation (Lovell et al., 2009). Poverty can be defined by per-capita income, or non-
monetary benchmarks such as education or access to healthcare (Adams et al., 2004). Eighty per cent
of those living in poverty are in rural areas of developing countries (World Bank, 2017), mostly living
off the land (Lipper & Cavatassi, 2004). Rural areas provide the required landscape for the
establishment of a VM project. Implementation costs are considerably lower in developing countries
(Estrada & Corbera, 2012). Moreover, projects in these areas can have a bigger impact on the local
communities and biodiversity than in developed countries. This is because oftentimes governmental
support is limited or non-existent in such countries so outside support can have a greater impact.
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
of certain ecosystems via carbon projects could increase the likelihood of domination by other, perhaps
more malevolent, powerful parties (Pagiola et al., 2004). This is especially true in cases where land
tenure is less defined, or, as is often the case in Africa, a “disconnect between statutory and customary
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
written in a language unknown to the former (Carton & Andersson, 2017). This, along with limited
education or technical understanding (Pagiola et al., 2004), and lack of knowledge about carbon credit
calculations (Lee et al., 2016), can make it hard for communities to dispute any contractual or payment
issues which arise. They lack the power and capacity to fight this and often lose out. Conversely,
buyers and developers have the access to capital, labour, technology and knowledge (Wang & Corson,
2014). In terms of payments, power is geared towards buyers and intermediaries and it has been
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’”.
Using stories and imagery to depict an environment requiring protection, or a community in need of
support can increase the consumption rates of VM credits (Lovell et al., 2009). It helps to remove the
barrier of distance between consumers in the North and recipients in the South and “invoke a sense of
personal connection and obligation” (Lovell et al., 2009, p.2369). Igoe (2010) terms this use of media
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
in the following sections.
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.
Although the framework can be applied to a number of levels, such as individual or national, this
research paper applies it to the village level. The villages in focus are those within the project
boundaries of the Alto Mayo Conservation Initiative and the Yaeda Valley REDD Project. As this
paper is not a piece of participatory research and it is without community interviews, the analysis will
be based on the responses from the project developers and secondary supporting evidence. The next
chapter will expand upon the particular methods and methodology utilised within this thesis.
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
The next step was interviewing the project developers to discover how they consider the community
when initiating a project and what mechanisms they chose to increase agency and stability for the
communities involved. The aim of these interviews was to get a deeper understanding of the projects
and the actors involved, as well as gain further insights that may not be present in other documents.
Using interviews to move beyond a desk-based study of the available documents will add “depth and
reflexiveness” (Karhunmaa, 2016, p.73). Semi-structured interviews open conversations about the
methods (if any) project developers implement to increase benefits for local people. This offers an
insight into how important community benefits are to developers. As outside sources and other
documents will also be utilised in this thesis, two in-depth interviewees are deemed sufficient to draw
sufficient conclusions. A professional relationship already existed between the interviewees and author
of this thesis due to careers in the same sector. The interviewees were contacted directly via email and
informed of the intent of the thesis. One must be cautious when using convenience interviewees as
there may be restrictions when publishing results. In this case, however, it was not a limiting factor and
the interviewees were more open due to the pre-existing relationship. Each participant was interviewed
once through a Skype voice call which lasted approximately two hours and was recorded with the
consent of both interviewees. The interviews made it clear that they were happy to be named and due
to the nature of the study it is not thought necessary to protect their identities. Braulio Andrade, Alto
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
e. Governance and implementation structures
f. Smallholders capacity development
(Verra, 2017, p.p. 21-22)
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.
To conduct the interview analysis, the interviews were transcribed using an online platform called Trint.
Then using a framework set out by Galletta and Cross (2013) for analysing semi-structured interviews
the transcripts were annotated, thematically labelled and categorised according to the Sustainable Rural
Livelihoods Approach (SRLA) (Scoones, 1998). This analysis will open a discussion about the factors
which might limit the level of positive community impacts. The thesis will compare and contrast
different mechanisms and approaches utilised by project developers to increase sustainable livelihoods.
For this paper to be of practical use to developers and policy makers, it will conclude with
recommendations to increase the positive community benefits provided by carbon offsetting projects.
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
increased slash and burn activity in the area. The outcome of this was extensive deforestation and loss
of ecosystem (VCS Project Description, Conservation International, 2015). Competition for land and
natural resources increased with the high levels of migration from the Andes. The lure of San Martin’s
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
The Shampuyacu community encompasses three villages and approximately 220 indigenous Awajun
families living across 5,000 hectares withing the Peru’s San Martin region.
20
Disney
Disney were the biggest initial investors in the project, investing a sum of US$3.15 million. This was
deemed sufficient to fund the project until it began generating carbon revenues. Disney continued this
support in 2013 when they purchased 437,000 VCUs (Verified Carbon Units) to offset a portion of their
emissions (Verra, 2013).
Conservation International (CI)
Conservation International is an American non-governmental organisations (NGO) with offices in 29
countries and 2,000 global partners (CI, 2020). Through its Peru branch, CI-Peru, Conservation
International manage the administration and implementation of the project in partnership with the Head
Office of SERNANP. CI-Peru has overall control of the AMCI and an Administration Contract was
signed with SERNANP allow to co-management of the AMPF. The team consists of 14 Peruvian social
and natural scientists assisted by a technical team of six. Their “objective is to strengthen the signing
of Conservation Agreements in the AMPF by facilitating partnerships between the local population and
the AMPF Head Office.” (Conservation International, 2012, p.8)
National Service of Natural Protected Areas by the State (SERNANP) & AMPF Head Office (Jefatura)
SERNANP is a government agency which consists of nature and conservation experts and has the role
of creating and protecting all of Peru’s Natural Protected Areas (NPAs). Through the decentralised
entity which is the AMPF Head Office (Jefatura), SERNANP engages in the management of the AMPF
and has overall authority within the National Park. The Head Office fulfils the role of establishing
guidelines and legal frameworks for the Conservation Agreements. Following the signing of the
Administration Contract, the Head Office shares accountability with CI for the signing and monitoring
of the Conservation Agreements with the local communities.
The Association for Andean Ecosystems (ECOAN)
A Peruvian NGO specialising in establishing conservation projects and conducting research into
endangered flora and fauna species in Peru. With experience in ecotourism organisations and managing
community projects, ECOAN are responsible for “working directly with local settlers to design and
implement Conservation Agreements in the field” (Conservation International, 2012, p. 11).
AMPF Management Committee
As stated in The Law of Natural Protected Areas, a Management Committee must exist to provide
stakeholders with a platform to communicate with SERNANP. “Participation in these multi-
stakeholder forums (MSFs) is open and voluntary” and one aim is to “enhance intersectoral coordination
to support the NPA’s management” (Center for International Forestry Research, 2019, p.2). The AMPF
Management Committee was established in 2001 and consists of around 100 members from indigenous
communities, government officials, NGOs and private sector (ibid).
Rondas Campesinas
The Rondas Campesinas have existed for a number of centuries, originally set up as community justice
institutions. Groups of male peasants aged between 18 and 60 defended rural Peruvian communities
against cattle rustlers (Palomino, 1996). Born out of a necessity to fight corrupt officials who failed to
dispense justice for certain illegal activities, the Rondas now oversee a wide range of activities such as
land disputes and development projects. The institutions were officially recognised in the 1980s
(Palomino, 1996) and concerned themselves with the conservation discourse from the early 1990s
(Shanee, 2019). It is perceived by villagers that having a Ronda base within the community is key to
attracting conservation NGOs as it “assures visitors’ safety” (Shanee, 2019, p. 275). However,
sometimes the groups are unable to resolve issues due to “low levels of education, confidence, and
experience in legal issues” (ibid, p. 274). The Rondas have a strong presence in Alto Mayo and CI
reports that this has weakened the authority of SERNANP in the area s many perceive the Rondas to be
official authorities (CI, 2012).
Verde Ventures
21
Verde Ventures is a CI owned investment company which provides loans to small businesses. Verde
Ventures invested more than “US$800,000 in revolving credit lines to sustainable coffee producers in
the Alto Mayo” (Wendt, 2015, p. 296)
VCS/CCBS
This project was validated by VCS and CCBS.
5.2 Yaeda Valley REDD Project
The Yaeda Valley project is located in the Central Rift Valley of Northeast Tanzania. The majority of
the land is covered by Acacia-Commiphora woodland and the area is used by the hunter-gatherer
Hadzabe tribe. Encroachment from more densely populated villages outside the project boundaries
threatened the region with slash and burn techniques leading to deforestation and degradation. This
change in land use conflicts with the village land use plan and other national laws but still persists
(Carbon Tanzania, 2015). The land is legally owned by the Hadzabe communities living in the Mongo
Wa Mono and Domanga villages. As other groups move into the area, enticed by more productive land,
the Hadzabe people are slowly displaced. Prior to the project, the Hadzabe were living “at the extreme
end of the poverty scale […] with no form of stable economic activities or income” (Carbon Tanzania,
2015, p. 13). They live a low impact existence and are reliant on nature for their subsistence (ibid).
Carbon Tanzania (CT) established the Yaeda Valley REDD project with the Ujamaa Community
Resource Team (UCRT) to address the slash and burn practice that is causing extensive deforestation
in the area. CT worked with elected village leaders and members of the Hadzabe community to help
strengthen local management capacity and generate an income via a Payment for Ecosystem Services
(PES) mechanism.
The three main objectives of the project were:
i. strengthening land tenure, management capacity and local natural resource management,
ii. enhancing and diversifying local incomes,
iii. contributing to local, national and global environmental conservation aims
Prior to the commencement of the project, the Ujamaa Community Resource Team (UCRT) used
mechanisms such as lobbying and participatory land use planning to help the Hadzabe secure the rights
to 20,000 hectares of land. The creation of the first ever community Certificate of Customary Right of
Occupancy (CCRO) in Tanzania supported the Hadzabe “to strengthen the external legal recognition
and boundaries of community lands” (Agarwal et al., 2018, p. 57) meaning that the community legally
owned the village land and were able to receive payments from carbon credits (UCRT, 2020).
The project aimed to “empower and train community guards to patrol, monitor and report on natural
resource use contrary to” conservation plans (Carbon Tanzania, 2015, p. 2). Community members
would also be trained in farming practices that were more suitable to the area “so that land conversion
becomes less necessary” (ibid). The project would reinforce the village land use plan and strengthen
boundaries.
This is to be done by:
• reinforcing the implementation of the approved village land use plan and associated
village by-laws,
• improving forest conservation and management activities and
• addressing the primary driver of deforestation, externally driven slash and burn
agriculture.
5.2.1 Involved Entities
The Hadzabe Community
22
The Hadzabe are a hunter-gatherer tribe who have been utilizing the Acacia–Commiphora forests for
over 40,000 years. They have lost up to 90% of their land over the last 50 years due to encroachment.
The 1,000 surviving members live on less than US$1 per day “wihtout any form of stable economic
activities or income” (Agarwal et al., 2018, p. 56).
Ecological Initiatives Ltd. (EI)
EI is a registered Tanzanian company whose role in the project covered the management of
administrative overheads and financial planning. EI would be the main contact for the government and
would carry out the market research for the project design. A key aspect of their involvement was the
distribution of the carbon revenues.
Carbon Tanzania (CT)
Carbon Tanzania is a registered not-for-profit organisation acting under Ecological Initiatives Ltd. It
was founded by conservation biologists, Njano Mbilinyi, Marc Baker and Jo Anderson with the aim of
providing “unique skills, knowledge and experience-based services and interventions that lead to the
production and delivery to market of forest-based carbon offsets" (Baker, 2020, p. 3). The Yaeda Valley
project is coordinated by CT and validation and verification documentation is prepared by them in order
to receive accreditation from Plan Vivo. The CT team are reported to have “extensive experience in
forestry, conservation, biodiversity assessment and wildlife management” and are associated with
institutions that can provide necessary technical support (Carbon Tanzania, 2015, p.2). CT was the
signatory for any PES agreements and sales contracts.
Ujamaa Community Resource Team (UCRT)
At the time of project design, the UCRT had been working in the Yaeda Valley region for a period of
nine years and provide an insight into the local context of the Hadzabe communities. The organisation
has a history of “supporting community rights and ownership to ensure the viable and long-term
conservation of human and biological diversity” (Carbon Tanzania, 2015, p.2).
The Hadzabe Communities
The Hadzabe were granted ownership of the village lands by the government and thus they are allowed
to enter into binding agreements relating to land use. Two representatives from each village own the
land deeds for the project area, and these four “are the same four signatories to the contract with Carbon
Tanzania, again reflecting community-wide agreement to the partnership” (Carbon Tanzania, 2015,
p.14). The roles of the villagers included developing a land use plan and any village by-laws, patrolling
the area, monitoring and reporting on biodiversity and socioeconomic impacts (ibid, p.17).
Plan Vivo
This project was validated by Plan Vivo.
6. Findings & Analysis
The following chapter presents the findings and analysis of the conducted interviews and secondary
data sources such as project design documents and monitoring reports. Further outside sources are used
to support or contradict the results from the interviews and documents. Extracts from the interviews
with the project developers are included.
The findings and analysis will be presented in sections which answer the three research questions:
(1) How do livelihood impacts anticipated by project developers align with actual outcomes?
(2) To what level can these livelihood benefits be sustained post-project?
(3) What barriers are impeding an increase in positive community benefits?
23
6.1 How do livelihood impacts anticipated by project developers align with actual outcomes?
This section outlines the information gathered from evaluation documents for each of the projects and
uses the verification documents produced by third-party organisations to answer the research question.
In the initial phases of this work, it was assumed that there would be discrepancies between the
evaluation documents and the verification documents referred to in the following sections. However,
no notable inconsistencies were found and official documentation confirming that the impacts
anticipated by the developers of each project aligns with the actual outcomes. This demonstrates the
importance of scrutinising outside sources for further insight into the actual outcomes of the project.
Additionally, as the documents were developed over an extended time period, the project developers
may have been motivated to make amendments to meet set criteria.
Alto Mayo Verification & Monitoring Report findings were used to assess the reality of the proposed
actions by Conservation International within the Alto Mayo project.
In 2018, it was confirmed by a third-party verifier that “with reasonable level of assurance that the
project complies with all of the verification criteria. The assessment team has no restrictions or
uncertainties with respect to the compliance of the project with the verification criteria” (AENOR, 2018,
p. 2). This follows an earlier independent assessment carried out by SCS Global (2012) which
concluded that the project conformed to the CCB Standards.
Yaeda Valley Verification & Monitoring Report Findings were used to assess the reality of the proposed
actions by Carbon Tanzania within the Yaeda Valley REDD+ Project.
In 2018 a third-party body appointed by Plan Vivo, attested that the “project has achieved the results
stated in the annual reports” (Validation and Verification Statement, Sudheendra, 2018). Moreover, it
confirmed that the project remained additional and not similar in scope or scale to any other government
or private projects in the region.
A more recent annual report was available, covering the period 1st Feb 2019 to 31st Jan 2020, but no
supporting certificate exists signed by a third-party verifier. On the premise that the previous reports
have been approved and verified, this research paper assumes the same can be said for the most recent
annual report. Therefore, this thesis uses the 2020 Annual Report to assess the current status of the
project as presented by Carbon Tanzania, and as a basis to answer research question (2).
In 2019, the Yaeda Valley REDD project was awarded the UNDP’s Equator Prize which recognises
“outstanding community efforts to reduce poverty through the conservation and sustainable use of
biodiversity” (Equator Initiative, 2019). The impact and innovation from the project resulted in the
award which included a cash prize of US$10,000 to be used on increased natural resource protection, a
UN film crew visit to the project, and a trip for a project community member to receive the award in
New York City at the 2019 UN general assembly and climate week” (Baker, 2020, p. 5). This award
supports the claim made here that the anticipated impacts of the project align with the actual outcomes.
One of the biggest differences between the projects was the approach taken by the developers in
communicating information regarding climate change and the carbon markets. Carbon Tanzania aimed
to fully explain the carbon market and climate change to community stakeholders. They worked with
translators, interpreters and other partners to disseminate information (Anderson, 2020). The
interviewee acknowledged that the level of comprehension varied based on “huge differences in
education levels, huge differences in cognitive engagement, political engagement”. An interview on
the Mongabay news website supports that at least some of the community members understand the
benefits of carbon as an environmental service. Mzee Sinze, a villager from the Hadzabe tribe stated
that “carbon is very important to us Hadzabe” and he continued to discuss his role he played in
conservation: “we try to find out who is cutting these trees so we can arrest them” (Tremblay & Lowry,
2016). Fassbender (2016) found that Hadzabe community members wanted to acquire more knowledge
on the science of carbon storage. Conservation International, on the other hand, opted to limit the
information dissemination. Communities in the AMPF did not know the full extent of their involvement
24
in a carbon project and the interviewee stated that the decision to withhold this information was made
to avoid any conflict between communities and authorities.
6.2 To what level can these livelihood benefits be sustained post-project?
This section presents the findings from the interviews, relevant documents and outside sources. The
Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Approach (SRLA) is used to simultaneously to analyse the results and
answer research question (2). In some instances, it is imperative to compare and contrast the project.
Therefore, the findings from both projects are presented in the same section. This section is separated
according to the sustainable livelihood outcomes stipulated within the SRLA. Each section is then
further divided into the relevant livelihood resources (natural, financial, human and social capital)
which exist and enable the outcomes.
6.2.1 Creation of working days
This section relates to the creation of gainful employment through the implementation of the project. It
refers to the generation of income and the levels of subsistence production.
Natural Capital
Natural resources can be a continuous income stream for many rural communities as revenue can be
derived from Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES). Despite both projects utilising REDD+, a well-
known PES mechanism, only the interviewee from Carbon Tanzania referred to it as such. Anderson
(2020) viewed PES schemes as a “way to value and preserve ecosystems sustainably” and potentially
“put a value on some areas in Tanzania that weren’t there at the time”. He claimed that the decentralised
land tenure system in Tanzania created a strong pre-condition for the success of a PES. By owning the
land, local communities were then able to receive direct payments for the carbon credits from the
international market, via Carbon Tanzania. In the Alto Mayo, land was owned by the government which
meant that revenue from carbon sales did not reach the communities. As local people couldn’t receive
carbon revenue, Conservation International focused more on diversifying to ensure financial benefits.
This could mean that on cessation of the YV project, the local people would be impacted by the loss of
carbon revenue than those within the AM project.
With this increased value of the ecosystems in both projects, the risk of domination by more malevolent
groups, as noted by Pagiola and colleagues (2004), has risen. When the project ends, more powerful
parties may move in and take advantage of the natural assets and local communities. The fact that the
land does not belong to the Alto Mayo communities could have a negative impact on the future of the
AMCI. It is thought that for local communities to benefit from REDD+ projects, and for them to
become “effective conservation agents” (Bayrak & Marafa, 2016, p.10), securing land tenure and
ownership of carbon stocks is critical (Agrawal et al., 2011; Sunderlin et al., 2014; Reed, 2011).
However, communities in the Alto Mayo region became more actively concerned about their role in
conservation throughout the project (Andrade, 2020; Cordero & de Freitas, 2014).
During the 2016-2018 monitoring period of the Alto Mayo Conservation Initiative, over 2,000 people
attended 81 training events focusing on the sustainable cultivation of coffee and dragon fruit. In
addition, over 5,000 hours of technical assistance was provided. The result of this training was 98%
of subscribers confirming that “they practiced at least 2 organic management techniques in their farms”.
(CI Monitoring & Implementation Report, 2018, p. 47). Furthermore, the percentage of subscribers
reportedly reinvesting their profits into organic production activities rose from 19% in 2014 to 65% in
2018 (ibid). Conforming to organic farming practices can sustain the link between the Alto Mayo
supply and the international demand. The claim was that these coffee practices can yield “up to three
or four times greater compared to a conventional coffee plantation, as well as doubling the production
life of the crop” (Conservation International, 2012, p.17). However, there is still a market for non-
25
organically grown coffee and to meet this demand “conventional coffee practices are displaced to native
communities increasing unsustainable land use in areas rented by them" (ibid, p. 52). This signifies a
potential return to unsustainable coffee practices on cessation of the project.
It was noted that more tourism initiatives were arising in the Alto Mayo Protected Forest as community
members began to see the extent of financial benefits derived from its natural beauty (CI, Monitoring
& Implementation Report, 2018). In the Yaeda Valley, a tourism initiative, Dorobo Safaris Ltd, existed
before the project was implemented. The project design document argues that without the project, the
revenue stream from the pre-existing tourism initiative would “reduce and eventually disappear”
(Carbon Tanzania, 2015, p.26). It is clear that the project provides conservation to the natural beauty,
and the NGO presence in the area offers safety assurances to visitors. However, if the community can
find other ways to conserve the beauty, the tourism initiative can continue. For instance, Anderson
(2020) believed that the communities had developed an understanding of the importance of the forest
to their livelihoods, even once the project is over and they no longer receive funds for the carbon credits.
Expanding the ecotourism offering will provide a secure future for both projects, on the condition that
tourists feel safe to visit the areas.
Financial Capital
Forest guards were employed by each project to monitor the area and report back on any illegal activities
witnessed. After the project, there might not be revenue to continue paying the guards. They would
have to consider this role important for the community and have a strong desire to conserve the area for
this to continue.
The Alto Mayo project has reportedly improved the livelihoods and increased the income of 1,992
people. The direct export of certified products such as coffee had generated US$1.3million prior to
2018 (CI Monitoring & Implementation Report, 2018). This revenue is reportedly being reinvested into
sustainable production and if the international demand remains, there is a strong likelihood that the sales
will continue after the project.
Human Capital
The Conservation International interview stated that no new migrants had settled in the area, which he
attributed to the stronger law enforcement and knowledge that they will not receive land entitlement
(Andrade, 2020). He strongly believed that the legacy of the project is sustainable and that the people
were making more conscious decisions when it came to spending their income. The project also
facilitated the upskilling of community members to such a level that they can be employed directly by
the project developer. Conservation International had seen “very good stories on how people used to
be coffee growers and now they are, I mean, coordinators or even managers at CI” (Andrade,
2020). This upskilling indicates a sustainable livelihood impact as it could increase the possibilities of
the community members being hired by public or private sector entities.
Social Capital
In the Alto Mayo, prior to the project, the local coffee growing communities had very limited linkages
to the international buyers. There were many middlemen involved and this resulted in producers
receiving “the worst price of coffee that you can imagine,” (Andrade, 2020). The project created a
stronger linkage between the local farmers and the international market. Managers, promoters and
technical advisors from the head office joined forces with the community farmers and developed
cooperatives. The cooperative the interviewee was referring to is the
Cooperativa Multiservicios Bosques del Alto Mayo Limitada (COOPBAM). COOPBAM, comprising
of 336 AMPF subscribers and established in 2014, is responsible for the marketing of the coffee and
deals directly with coffee importers (Conservation International, 2019). This then increases “their profit
margin by doing without coffee intermediaries” (Conservation International, 2019, p. 21).
As well as teaching the local people of the Alto Mayo Protected Area more sustainable agriculture
techniques, Conservation International also wanted to convey how “social infrastructure could become
one of the main allies for the protected area” (Andrade, 2020). The interviewee from CI viewed
conservation as a means to secure public investment to meet local people’s basic needs. CI also
26
educated the communities to engage with the private sector and express to them the importance of their
financial support in “supporting the management of the protected area” (ibid). When the project leaves
the area, the communities will no longer have a spokesperson from an outside organisation. By
leveraging these newly developed networks, the local people can have a better dialogue and are more
likely to have their needs met. As noted in Chapter 3, multi-scale communications are important for
environmental justice (Lee et al., 2016) but usually require social capital and an opportunity for
interaction (Yaffee et al., 1997). Both projects have provided the necessary foundations for these
communications, improving the future of participating communities.
Both interviewees spoke of a “domino effect” between community members involved in the project and
those on the outside. Although some local people did not want to be involved in the project, they
witnessed the benefits received by the participating farmers, such as increased coffee yield and better-
quality produce. This then encouraged the neighbouring farmers to learn more sustainable behaviours.
From this, Conservation International decided to allow non-subscribers to attend workshops, and Yaeda
Valley made the decision to expand and incorporate more community members. As this positive
leakage continues, more community members will receive benefits and a greater number of livelihoods
will be improved. There will be less friction between land users and a lower possibility of illegal
practices returning to the area from external encroachment. Moreover, Anderson felt that the villagers
involved in the project had “enormous political capital in the greater landscapes because they will be
seen as the people who brought massive benefits for the entire landscape and ecosystems” (2020).
6.2.2 Poverty Reduction
This section discusses the ways in which the project has contributed to reduce poverty in the areas and
how likely it is that this impact will continue.
Financial Capital
The Non-Permanence Risk Report section of the Conservation International Monitoring &
Implementation Report (2018) refers to a financial model of four scenarios with varying carbon pricing
from US$3 to US$9 per metric ton. Under each scenario, two options were modelled: one assumed that
cash surpluses would be invested in a trust fund for 20 years (until 2028); and the second assumed that
the crediting period would extend (until 2038) and cash surpluses would be invested into a trust fund
for 30 years. The document concludes that “even with fairly conservative assumptions about carbon
price and the volumes of emissions reductions the project will have long-term financial sustainability”
(Conservation International, 2012b, p.6). However, the model actually exposed that, unless the
crediting period was extended to 2038, there would not be enough money to fund the project up to
2058. It was mentioned in the report that to safeguard funds for the long-term management of the
Protected Area, CI were considering the creation of a trust fund. Using carbon credits, the trust fund
would ensure “enough funds to sustain the project’s operations up to a minimum of fifty years”
(Conservation International, 2012b, p. 6). Thus, even without continued carbon revenues, the
communities would continue receiving benefits laid out in the Conservation Agreements. There is no
discussion of a similar mechanism in the Yaeda Valley.
The CI Monitoring & Implementation Report (2018) noted an increase in the number of people living
below the poverty line. Between 2014 and 2018 the Progress Poverty Index rose from 44.1% to 46.7%
(CI Monitoring & Implementation Report, 2018, p. 48). Studies show that the implementation of a
REDD+ or conservation project does not necessarily reduce poverty levels, and in fact poverty can
sometimes worsen as the local communities trade-in their livelihoods in the name of conservation (e.g.
Blom et al., 2010).
27
6.2.3 Well-being and Capabilities
This section refers to the increase in intrinsic values as well as material concerns which impact the
livelihoods of community members.
Natural Capital
It was noted by CI that 99% of the population within the AMPF “recognized the importance of the
ecosystem services in their well-being and are willing to develop conservation actions” (CI, Monitoring
& Implementation Report, 2018). The Yaeda Valley project design document states that the goal of
conserving the natural resources would secure the culture and lifestyle of the Hadzabe. (Carbon
Tanzania, 2015). Instilling the idea of a close relationship between conservation and wellbeing can
increase the likelihood of the communities continuing their more sustainable behaviours and therefore
receiving the benefits from it such as revenue from international produce sales.
Financial Capital
It is widely recognised by scholars that there is a trade-off to be made between conservation and
development. Blom and colleagues argue that achieving goals in both aspects is “exceedingly rare”
(2010, p. 169). Both interviewees attested to this, with one stating that “local people always bear the
cost of conservation and they very rarely enjoy the fruits of it” (Anderson, 2020). Furthermore,
development within Peruvian conservation areas is very restricted as National Parks constitute as
“patrimony of the nation” and “their natural condition must be maintained in perpetuity” (Conservation
International, 2012, p.29). However, both interviewees felt that the projects had helped to find a balance
between development and conservation. Conservation International negotiated with the government of
San Martin and a ‘functional hub’ was set up in the buffer zone of the project in the town of Aguas
Verdes. This strategy aimed at bringing health and education services for the community together in
one place and “generate competitive capabilities in the young generations of the population living
within the AMPF” (CI, Monitoring & Implementation Report, 2018, p. 26). The location of this hub
was also a tactic to quell conflicts which were “generated by the illegal construction of cart tracks in
the AMPF” (CI, Monitoring & Implementation Report, 2018, p. 22).
The distribution of funds laid out by Carbon Tanzania in the Yaeda Valley design document appeared
to have been simplified for the sake of increasing the efficiency of the project. This is an approach
which could “lead to elite capture of REDD benefits”, causing conflicts and the return to forest
degradation by the “non-elite community members” (Blom et al., 2010, p. 168). Moreover, as pointed
out by Agrawal and colleagues (2018, p. 61), there are two other tribes in the area – Brabaig and Iraqu -
and “it is not clear how the other two communities in the project area are benefitted either from the
project or from the accruing carbon revenue”. Failing to observe them could cause future conflicts.
In 2019, the Yaeda Valley REDD project was awarded the UNDP’s Equator Prize in 2019. The receipt
of this award shows that the project has brought the needs of the Hadzabe tribe into prominence and
that the work carried out by the local communities has paid dividends. Furthermore, this international
recognition has increased the price of a carbon credit in the Yaeda Valley and more funding is now
available for:
“1) education provision both for school children, college students and adults,
2) increasing the capacity of the VGS [Village Game Scouts] through sending them to formal
government ranger training courses, and
3) improving governance and financial management capacity in the community administrative
structures through supporting training events, facilitating meetings and developing better
systems for accountability”
(Baker, 2020, p. 9).
Human Capital
The UN-REDD program and the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (2012) recognise that indigenous
people have importance and special status due to their connections with forests and their rights and
interests should be safeguarded. One safeguarding measure the practice of gaining Free Prior and
28
Informed Consent (FPIC) from local communities. This involves educating communities on all
REDD+ impacts and allowing them to decide on whether the project should be implemented
(Bayrak & Marafa, 2016). In the AMPF, communities did not know the full extent of their involvement
in a carbon project as Conservation International elected not to share information. The interviewee
stated that the decision to withhold this information was made to avoid any conflict between
communities and authorities. In the protected area, the land belonged to the Ministry of Environment,
and therefore so did the carbon credits. Thus, any private sector payments for the credits were received
by the government and did not reach the communities in the form of carbon payments. The community
members did not have full FPIC and were not given the option to vote against a REDD+ project. This
structure limits the decision-making capacity of the community within the project boundaries and does
not safeguard their interests.
‘Youth environmental education’ was a topic detailed within the Alto Mayo project design document
as a strategy to “ensure the sustainability of the project in future generations” (Conservation
International, 2012, p.18). Teaching young people within educational institutions about the importance
of conserving the National Park was thought to develop a “sense of environmental
stewardship”. Learning new techniques and terminology enables the communities to connect with
international markets and diversify their livelihoods. Teaching project participants the importance of
climate change mitigation allows them to make more educated decisions in the future and improve their
land use choices. Increased training about the carbon market and sequestration could improve
livelihood opportunities for community members as this knowledge could be used to make more
educated choices and expand employment opportunities.
Training within the Alto Mayo as part of the project has resulted in improved skills and knowledge for
3,689 community members, 1,671 of which are females (CI Monitoring & Implementation Report,
2018). This can help to improve the well-being of the community members and raise self-
esteem. Increased well-being was noted by CI within 3,104 community members. Well-being was
defined by CI as “people’s experience of the quality of their lives” and the benefits can include the
aforementioned training, but also “empowerment of community groups, strengthened legal rights to
resources, conservation of access to areas of cultural significance” (CI Monitoring & Implementation
Report, 2018, p. 5). CI implemented new laws and regulations to “ensure a safe, comfortable,
enriching work environment” (CI Monitoring & Implementation Report, 2018, p. 31). The Equal
Opportunity Employment Policy and Professional Development Policy help to improve well-being in
the workplace and reduce discrimination which can lead to inequal resource access.
Social Capital
There was a consensus between the interviewees that building trust was key when implementing the
project. Conservation International was reportedly seen as the enemy by association when they
accompanied the government agency SERNANP into the village (Andrade, 2020). The interviewee
explained that prior to the project, local authorities were promoting the creation of new schools and
villages because they were unaware of the Protected Area status. SERNANP, acting in the interest of
conservation in the Protected Area, began halting the infrastructure development and at the same time
park rangers were displacing the locals. This caused animosity towards SERNANP; the farmers
were sceptical of the introduction of new practices and felt they were being deceived (Andrade,
2020). The first task for CI was to develop relationships with the locals. There was high resistance in
the area but the interviewee attributed an outbreak of coffee rust in 2012 for the improved acceptance
of the project. After the coffee rust devastated 90% of coffee plantations in Alto Mayo, the locals began
to implement more sustainable coffee farming practices. Maintaining this newly developed trust
between local communities and SERNANP is vital in ensuring continued conservation efforts by local
people. Furthermore, the project has stimulated a deeper understanding of people’s development needs
by SERNANP. This is essential for local people to continue to prosper post-project.
In the Yaeda Valley, the interviewee noted the importance of “trust and a very profound level of sort of
local knowledge and understanding of culture and […] legal and cultural and traditional
knowledge”. The village members were involved from a very early stage. Their input in the planning
stage was deemed important due to their “indigenous knowledge about the project’s forest area and
29
biodiversity” (Carbon Tanzania, 2015, p.16). Including local communities in the planning stages of the
project, as CT did, increases the likelihood that their conservation behaviours will continue because
they have become “invested and engaged in the project” (Blom et al., 2010, p. 169). They will continue
to sustainably produce coffee and other goods available for export on the international market,
maintaining their income and conserving the environment they live in. Building trust in the initial
project phases enabled the development of strong institutions and partnerships in both projects, allowing
for increased sustainable outcomes.
Providing a platform for stakeholder dialogue such as the AMPF Management Committee (MC) was
important to encourage the ongoing prosperity of a community within project boundaries. The
horizontal flow of information can create harmony and understanding if the relevant stakeholders are
given a voice. In-depth, participatory research undertaken by the Center for International Forestry
Research (CIFOR) notes that there was a lack of representation for certain local communities living
within the National Park. The researchers argued that the historical conflict between SERNANP and
some local populations “of Andean origin over land and resource rights” is deep-rooted and is a barrier
to participation (Sarmiento Barletti & Larson, 2019, p. 2). The CIFOR study shows that some
communities do not wish to participate in the project (or sign Conservation Agreements) because their
demands for land titling were not being met. Participants of the Management Committee stated that
these communities “have interfered with the monitoring activities of park rangers for the NPA’s
protection, as well as preventing the entry into the area of other stakeholders,” (Sarmiento Barletti &
Larson, 2019, p. 2). Despite the insistence of the interviewee that there is now little conflict in the area,
it was found that social conflicts over rights have increased, impeding the success of the MCs main
objectives. Only 58.3% of the members perceived the MC to be effective (Sarmiento Barletti & Larson,
2019, p.4).
6.2.4 Adaption and Resilience
This section relates to the ability of a community to cope with and recover from shocks and to manage
their stocks of natural resources.
Natural Capital
Water was an important feature within both projects. The Yaeda Valley project design document noted
that protecting the water sources within the project boundaries and maintaining access for surrounding
villages “increases the adaptive capacity of the larger community” in trying times (Carbon Tanzania,
2015, p. 15). Despite this comment, a 2016 study found that water availability was under pressure due
to livestock herding, irrigation systems and a restricted domestic water supply (Fassbender, 2016). A
major issue reported by Conservation International, but not addressed, was the access to drinking water
in the Alto May Protect Forest. There was no noted improvement in the levels of access and still only
2% of the project participants had access to drinking water (CI Monitoring & Implementation Report,
2018). Addressing the issue of water security promotes “equitable participation and benefit sharing in
REDD+” and is especially important as “water scarcity linked to drought is the greatest form of
vulnerability for forest ecosystems” (Atela et al., 2015, pp. 246-247).
Carbon Tanzania credited the project with securing the forested area in the Yaeda Valley. Without the
revenue from carbon sales, the woodland would not be protected, either “legally nor at the community
level” (Carbon Tanzania, 2015, p.13). This infers that there could be a return to the destructive
behaviours that were present in the area prior to the project. However, within the same document,
Carbon Tanzania stated that the tenure framework of the Village Land Act “provides a strong foundation
for participatory management of communal land and resources such as forests” (ibid, p.14). Therefore,
even without the presence of the project, the institutions have been strengthened to an extent where the
village committees can successfully manage land use at a lawful level.
In REDD+ projects, swidden agriculture, or ‘slash and burn’, is prohibited as it contradicts carbon
reduction activities. However, many scholars argue that this technique is sustainable and even improves
biodiversity (Dove, 1983; Loaiza et al., 2015). The prohibition of swidden agriculture can cause food
30
insecurity as land used for subsistence farming is protected for the means of conservation or in favour of
“high-valued cash crops for export” (Bayrak & Marafa, 2016, p. 11). As local communities become
accustomed to producing food for the international market, they will find it harder to farm for
subsistence if the demand falls. In some cases, REDD+ communities have been unable to meet their
dietary requirements and have withdrawn from the project altogether (Corbera, 2012). The Alto Mayo
Monitoring Report (2018), showed that the land management had improved on 2,635 hectares of non-
forest land over the lifetime of the project. Improving the way in which the land is managed has created
agricultural jobs and reduced the prospect of illegal activities returning to the area. Organic certification
has been awarded to 1,684ha of the land which increased the price of the product on the international
market. With priority given to this market, subsistence farming is the trade-off (Cordero & de Freitas,
2014.)
The introduction of bio-gardens, animal modules, ecological bathrooms and improved kitchens were
noted in the CI Monitoring & Implementation Report. These helped to improve self-sufficiency and
living conditions, and " contributed to improve the diet, health and habitability of the beneficiaries
without generating greater economic demands” (2018, p. 21).
Financial Capital
Carbon Tanzania collected carbon revenues on behalf of the village and the village committees were
then responsible for the spending. Some positive examples of spending were given by Anderson (2020):
money was earmarked for a health fund, for education, and for hospital transportation. By increasing
their financial decision-making capabilities, the local communities became less reliant on NGO
intervention and improved their adaptability to future shocks. Conservation International introduced a
portfolio of twelve green economic activities to the Alto Mayo area to help diversify their
livelihoods. The sales of dragon fruit, tourism initiatives, the breeding of honeybees with native bees,
and more sustainable coffee growing techniques were listed as ways to reach the international
markets. This facilitated the local communities to become more autonomous and less dependent on
coffee. This improves community resilience, making them less susceptible to shocks.
In a participatory study of the Yaeda Valley project in 2016, villagers declared a problem with
inadequate transport between villages. There was not enough infrastructure provided to improve the
speed of travel and communications between villages. Better infrastructure provision supported by CT
would “improve the work of the guards to observe the area and react faster” to any arising conflict
(Fassbender, 2016, p. 34). Improved transport infrastructure would increase adaptability because if
there was a shortage of jobs, assets or supplies in one area, it would be easier for a villager to travel
elsewhere to gain employment, food or farm machinery.
Human Capital
According to the Monitoring & Implementation Report (2018, p.30), 66% of the hired personnel in the
AMCI were from San Martin and its adjoining regions. This was to "forge local capacities in order to
empower the conservation of ecosystems". These members have the capacity to arrange and engage
with the local population and have a high knowledge of the local environment - this can shorten certain
decision making and process times and ultimately improve adaptability.
As stated in Chapter 3 of this thesis, the VM has a responsibility to provide poverty alleviation. Through
the increased labour opportunities and income diversification, key indicators put forward by Lipper &
Cavatassi (2004), both projects are seen to be reducing poverty. The ‘win-win’ scenario of reducing
climate emission and improving livelihoods of local communities (Lee et al, 2016; Corbera and Brown,
2008; Lipper & Cavatassi, 2004) has been met. Both projects have received benefits indirectly related
to carbon payments such as improved education and healthcare. As noted by Lee and colleagues (2016),
this is especially important when carbon payments are not reaching the communities, as experienced in
the Alto Mayo project. It is evident that transparent and secure land-tenure is not a necessity for
inclusion in the projects, a finding which contradicts many academics (Benessaiah, 2012; Lipper &
Cavatassi, 2004). Although secured land tenure would improve the futures of the participating
communities as their rights would be strengthened, reducing the risk of displacement.
31
6.3 What barriers are impeding an increase in positive
community benefits?
This section outlines any perceived risks and barriers to the sustainability of livelihood benefits to
answer research question (3). Although each project has its own risks, some risks and barriers are
shared by both projects. To ensure that this thesis is valuable, recommendations are made to improve
the prospect of these communities prospering on cessation of the projects.
6.3.1 Yaeda Valley
Referring back to the claim made by Kahrunmaa (2016) that a sustainable benefit has occurred when a
project participant is guaranteed a source of income from carbon revenues, these projects could both be
considered ‘sustainable’. However, in the case of the Yaeda Valley project where the communities
receive direct income from carbon sales, it is argued here that the participants have become reliant on
this income and will struggle to adjust to the loss of revenue. The capacity building spoken about in
the PDD has not been sufficient to ensure that the community will prosper without the project. Unlike
in the Alto Mayo project where the communities have developed cooperatives and strong linkages to
international markets, the Hadzabe communities in the Yaeda Valley still have some way to go before
reaching this level.
In the Yaeda Valley, a good relationship between the village and public sector was also imperative for
the community to use their income to meet their requirements. Despite the village committee receiving
and owning carbon revenues, “for them to use that money, they have to get authorisation from the
district” (Anderson, 2020). This meant that the community had to share some of the carbon payments
with the government “in order for the district to feel that they are being compensated for the support
they give the villages in land use, planning and law enforcement”. The communities developed an
understanding that they needed to build political capital to benefit from the carbon revenues. However,
as the project continued, the Hadzabe community expressed that they felt weak support from the district
government. There are reports that they made the decision to freeze some payments to the government
and reallocate them (Fassbender, 2016). The districts remain in a position of power which threatens
the sustainability of the Hadzabe livelihoods. There were times when the district had refused
expenditure and Carbon Tanzania had to mediate at. They facilitated this by invoking an indigenous
rights organisation called Ujamaa Community Resource Team (UCRT) to “help the community to
represent themselves to the district” (Anderson, 2020). This helped to develop a relationship between
the village and the district without CT being seen to directly represent the village. It is important for
UCRT to continue fulfilling this mediation role and improving the relationship between the Hadzabe
and the authorities in order for their needs to be met post-project.
As mentioned in the previous section, there is a risk to the continuation of the Alto Mayo project benefits
due to lack of land tenure. Similarly, in the Yaeda Valley there was perceived long-term risk. The
Certificate of Customary Right of Occupancy awarded to the Hadzabe tribe in 2011 provided a strong
legal framework for protection and management of community land. However, this certificate has an
expiration date and will only stand for another 15 years (Fassbender, 2016). Following this expiration,
“intrusion of external communities and activities may be difficult to prevent” (ibid, p. 40). Although
this thesis did not directly interview community members, studies within a REDD+ project in Indonesia
addressed local people’s concerns regarding loss of land. They feared that their access would become
restricted if and when the value of carbon increased (Miles, 2020). This fear is not unfounded. It has
been reported that communities “must reduce their production of food crops in order to plant trees for
the project” and that REDD+ projects prevent “communities from accessing forested areas that they
rely on for hunting and gathering, for shifting cultivation or for grazing” (Grain, 2015, p. 22). It is
recommended that multi-stakeholder dialogues are conducted throughout the project to “implement
social and environmental safeguards for REDD+” and “design benefit-sharing mechanisms based on
different types of forest tenure” (Cordero & de Freitas, 2014, p. 31). This would clarify the access
32
rights to land and natural resources for both the local communities and the authorities, and allow for
continued income generation to “improve the quality of life of the local communities” (ibid).
Another barrier in the Yaeda Valley which prevented further community benefits was the lack of
understanding by communities of how to plan for the future or educate the children on the importance
of conservation. The interviewee expressed that he wanted to see “greater sort of strides and more […]
clear sort of success” in some societal changes (Anderson, 2020). Continued non-biased third-party
involvement in the project area would be beneficial to maintain the newly created institutional
linkages. NGOs can play a useful role in helping to “curb corruption and promote mutually beneficial
relationships between the communities and the government” (Hayes & Persha, 2010, p.
551). Additionally, local level, or community-led, governance has been shown to result in better
livelihood outcomes as long as this transfer of decision-making authority is not purely symbolic
(Parrotta et al., 2012; Chhatre & Agrawal, 2009; Ribot et al., 2006).
6.3.2 Alto Mayo
The interviewee from CI stated that the current 2020 coronavirus global pandemic was problematic for
the vulnerable communities of Alto Mayo. He was concerned about a requirement to re-insert the
communities back into the international economy and the fact that they “may lose their coffee
campaign”. Despite the positive impacts from diversified livelihoods, any drop in the market price of
coffee or effects of climate change on honey production would be concerning because “their incomes
are still day by day” (Andrade, 2020). Continued strengthening between national markets and local
producers is key to coping with losses in the international market. Also, ensuring that the communities
do not forget their traditional subsistence farming practices and are able to continue utilising land for
this is essential for sustaining their livelihoods.
Something that could be both positive and undesirable for the communities of Alto Mayo is the
investment in university education for the next generation. The interviewee mentions that on leaving
the area, the young adults would “have more opportunities in the big cities. So, it will be very hard for
their kids to come back” (Andrade, 2020). However, he believed that if they continued to link the
“green economic portfolio to this speciality market” and keep the private sector engaged, they would
have “more chances for having the people back in the area”. With more funds being spent on education
and sending young adults to university, migration of the next generation is a high risk.
The Rondas Campesinas played a vital role in sustained conservation and development in the AMPF as
most of the population in the area are organised by this group. In order to strengthen the support of
Head Office and improve relations, agreements were signed between SERNANP and the Rondas. This
was said to improve tourism, public investment and social management in the 19 border towns
represented by these Rondas. However, in the 7 remaining towns which were not represented, “land
trafficking and deforestation has been concentrated in the past two years” (CI, Monitoring &
Implementation Report, 2018, p.26). Reports of recent confrontations between the Rondas and
SERNANP were not uncommon. In 2016, Ronda leaders started to demand that SERNANP employees
request permission to enter certain parts of the protected forest and confrontation ensued. Settlers
reportedly marched members of SERNANP into the forest and flogged them with “sticks, whips, and
lengths of chain” (Mider & Quigley, 2020). Forest policies which fail to recognise local rule-making
rights will be more difficult to apply as they “will not be perceived to be legitimate” by community
members (Hayes & Persha, 2010, p. 551). Continued relationship development between SERNANP
and Rondas Campesinas is especially important as research shows illegal activities can be more alluring
that maintaining REDD+ activities. A return to illegal logging in the Maasin City region of the
Philippines occurred when the communities experienced enduring poverty and “lack of livelihood
sources in the community” (Peras et al., 2016, p. 102) throughout the REDD+ Readiness Pilot
Demonstration Project. This is a risk to both the Alto Mayo project and Yaeda Valley. If livelihoods
are not diversified sufficiently, a return to previous unsustainable and illegal activities can
occur. Furthermore, at the end of the Alto Mayo project, the supporting personnel was set to reduce
from 80 professionals to a maximum of 20. The interviewee felt that this increased the importance of
33
putting “in place some long-term financial mechanism that gives them some time to consolidate” and
reduce the shock of project cessation.
6.3.3 Transferable Barriers
There was acknowledgement that the Voluntary Carbon Market may be finite and that this situation
was beyond the control of the project developer. The CI interviewee expressed concern that there is
not enough clarity surrounding carbon market policies and the future of “financial mechanisms such as
REDD+ projects are not very clear”. Moreover, because the Alto Mayo, along with 75 other protected
areas, is owned by the Ministry of Environment which has “the least budget of all the ministries in
Peru”, there was a worry that priorities would change. As political agendas change, support and funding
may be diverted from the Peru’s Natural Protected Areas (NPAs), leaving the AMPF in a similar
situation before the project. The AM project design document claimed that politicians have promised
development of NPAs in the past which has conflicted with conservation priorities in order to secure
election (Conservation International, 2012). Developing infrastructure in the AMPF would result in
loss of land and livelihood, and the benefits of the project would almost disappear. The interviewee
from Carbon Tanzania perceived that the voluntary carbon market would not exist at the end of the
project because by 2040 as we may have sufficiently decarbonized the planet. He expressed his hopes
that by this time the village communities would still prosper because there will be a “generation of
leaders and village representatives and children who've been educated” (Anderson, 2020).
For the local communities, nature has now been commodified. The natural resources were once freely
accessible within the communities, used for subsistence and cultural requirements. With the
introduction of REDD+, the ecosystems are now viewed as economically beneficial, providing the
people with a means to access international markets. The project has created a more capitalist
community and this mindset will be hard to change even when the project ends. This means there could
be more competition for resources resulting in increased conflict. Furthermore, there has been a loss of
food sovereignty as land and working hours are prioritized to provide for the international carbon and
produce markets. The communities now rely on the income from exports and subsistence agriculture
has taken a back seat. There is a possibility that the traditional farming practices will be forgotten
altogether. This trade-off was reported in the key literature on the VM as a requirement for reaching a
‘win-win’ scenario (Lee et al., 2016; Benessaiah, 2012). It is an opportunity cost which makes the
communities particularly vulnerable to a reduced international demand for carbon or produce.
Employing local people to patrol and report back on the behaviours of their neighbours which contradict
with the REDD+ project is undermining social cohesion. When the projects leave the area, there will
be fewer authoritarian figures for guards to turn to for support and conflicts may arise. With increased
conflict in the area, there is a lower chance of some of the aforementioned livelihood benefits remaining.
In summary, this chapter shows that many of the livelihood benefits received by the communities are
sustainable. However, a lack of planning for the future and educating the children on the importance
of conservation are risks in both projects. Whilst the project developers are still in the area, they should
work with the communities to help them build for a future without the project.
7. Concluding Remarks and Recommendations
With the recent shift towards natural climate solutions on the voluntary carbon market, and a clear focus
on implementing national REDD+ policies, it is vital to understand how these projects impact the local
communities. A number of studies have covered this research area but there was little attention given
to the future of these communities once a project leaves the area. As all projects have a limited lifespan,
this is a vital research field for consideration. This thesis set out to address any disconnect between the
community benefits anticipated by the project developer and the actual outcomes of the project. It is
evident that there was strong alignment between the anticipated and actual community benefits within
the two projects under analysis in this study. When considering how the local communities will prosper
on cessation of projects, it is equally evident that communities reliant on direct funds from carbon
34
credits will experience a bigger shock than those not receiving carbon revenues. The project
participants in the Alto Mayo did not receive money from the carbon credits, as they do not own the
land. But they have benefited from livelihood diversification and capacity building. The participants
of the Yaeda Valley project have grown to rely on the carbon revenues they receive and it is clear that
greater strides are needed towards financial autonomy and independent decision making. Additionally,
there is no guarantee that the infrastructure investments and other benefits gained from the improved
communications with local authorities will continue post-project. Both in Alto Mayo and Yaeda Valley,
political agendas can quickly change as can REDD+ policies.
The upskilling has improved well-being of community members and should reduce the risk of migration
from the area. However, the availability of drinking water is a major issue and a risk to the future of
communities within both projects. Furthermore, it is evident that access to certain benefits in both
regions are unequal. People must live in certain villages to receive carbon revenues or agricultural
training, for instance. This risks conflict in the area post-project. There is a risk of further conflict
between local guards who are required to report on their fellow neighbours for incorrect behaviours.
Conflict in these areas can remove the focus from conservation and maintaining the project benefits as
protecting your assets from encroachers takes priority.
Strengthened linkages to international markets, more sustainable farming practices, diversified
livelihoods, improved health and education opportunities could or could not continue post-project,
depending upon factors external to the project as such. Relationships with regional and local
governments have improved and authorities have begun to see the important link between local people
and conservation. However, this new understanding may not be strong enough to protect the rights of
the local people with changes in political agendas. Conservation and local livelihoods could become
posed against each other. Additionally, with the increased ecosystem values, other powerful parties may
move in to take control of the areas. As the land does not belong to the people of the Alto Mayo, and
the Hadzabe land titles are not indefinite, there is a risk of elite capture.
The projects appear to have increased the communities’ understanding of the importance of their natural
assets and this will be important for conservation and sustained livelihoods in the future. Whilst the
project developers are still active in the area, they should continue to work closely with the communities
and other institutions and authorities to help build for a cohesive future.
This thesis provides project developers with recommendations to ensure sustainability of livelihood
benefits from the design phase. Including the communities in the design phase and consulting with
them throughout has been beneficial for both projects, as has involving local NGOs. This thesis has
addressed a gap in the literature, as it focuses on the future of the communities post-project. It is a
thought-provoking study that contributes to the existing research on how carbon offsetting projects
This is an in-depth study into two specific voluntary carbon offsetting projects and although many of
its findings are transferable to other projects, it is important not to generalise. Each and every project
is quite different so a study into a wider range of carbon projects would be beneficial.
35
8. Acknowledgments
Throughout the writing of this thesis I have received constant support from my subject reviewer, Lars
Rudebeck. Despite our communication being limited to email, his guidance and detailed feedback was
invaluable in the writing of the thesis. As my supervisor, Steffen Boehm’s expert advice in the field of
carbon offsetting was imperative to the formulation of this thesis. His instruction on selecting the right
methodologies for the research made for a well-rounded thesis. I would of course like to thank both
interviewees, Braulio and Jo, for their time and their openness during the interviews. Additionally, I
am grateful for the support and flexibility I was given by my manager, Paloma Zapata. I would like to
extend a heart-felt thank you to my MSD 2020 classmates who taught me so much about the world of
sustainability and also about myself. My time in Sweden was positively impacted by each and every
one of them. I also want to acknowledge the continued understanding, especially important during the
2020 Covid-19 pandemic, from our course director, Gosia. Last but not least, I am extremely grateful
to my friends and family who have been there through the whole process, from applying to Universities
to my final presentation. I could not have succeeded without you!
36
9. REFERENCES
Adams, W.M., Aveling, R., Brockington, D., Dickson, B., Elliott, J., Hutton, J., Roe, D., Vira, B. and
Wolmer, W., 2004. Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty. science, 306(5699),
pp.1146-1149.
Agrawal, A., Nepstad, D. and Chhatre, A., 2011. Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest
degradation. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 36, pp.373-396.
Angelsen, A., 2017. REDD+ as Result-based Aid: General Lessons and Bilateral Agreements of
Norway. Rev Dev Econ 21, 237–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/rode.12271
Aragwal, S., Kumar Saxena, A., Vyas, V., Shrivastava, S., 2018 RETHINKING REDD+ A Centre for
Science and Environment assessment, Centre for Science and Environment
Atela, J.O., Minang, P.A., Quinn, C.H., Duguma, L.A., 2015. Implementing REDD+ at the local level:
Assessing the key enablers for credible mitigation and sustainable livelihood outcomes. Journal of
Environmental Management 157, 238–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.04.015
Bayrak, M., Marafa, L., 2016. Ten Years of REDD+: A Critical Review of the Impact of REDD+ on
Forest-Dependent Communities. Sustainability 8, 620. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8070620
Benessaiah, K. 2012, "Carbon and livelihoods in Post-Kyoto: Assessing voluntary carbon markets",
Ecological Economics, vol. 77, pp. 1-6.
Blom, B., Sunderland, T., Murdiyarso, D., 2010. Getting REDD to work locally: lessons learned from
integrated conservation and development projects. Environmental Science & Policy 13, 164–172.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.01.002
CA: Sage.
Campbell, B.M., 2009. Beyond Copenhagen: REDD plus, agriculture, adaptation strategies and
poverty.
Carton, W., Andersson, E., 2017. Where Forest Carbon Meets Its Maker: Forestry-Based Offsetting as
the Subsumption of Nature. Society & Natural Resources 30, 829–843.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2017.1284291
Cash, D.W., Adger, W.N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., Pritchard, L. and Young, O.,
2006. Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and
society, 11(2).
Chhatre, A. and Agrawal, A., 2009. Trade-offs and synergies between carbon storage and livelihood
benefits from forest commons. Proceedings of the national Academy of sciences, 106(42), pp.17667-
17670.
Conservation International, About Conservation International, 2020 <
https://www.conservation.org/about?jobid=267> accessed 9th May 2020
Corbera, E. & Brown, K. 2008, "Building Institutions to Trade Ecosystem Services: Marketing Forest
Carbon in Mexico", World Development, vol. 36, no. 10, pp. 1956-1979.
Corbera, E., 2012. Problematizing REDD+ as an experiment in payments for ecosystem services.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4(6), pp.612-619.
Corbera, E., Estrada, M., May, P., Navarro, G. & Pacheco, P. 2011, "Rights to Land, Forests and Carbon
in REDD+: Insights from Mexico, Brazil and Costa Rica", Forests, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 301-342.
Cordero, D., de Freitas, G.S., 2014. Considerations for REDD+ benefit sharing in Peru 64. The Forest
Dialogue
37
Creswell, J.W. 2013, Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches, 3.,
[updat] edn, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Danielsen, F., Skutsch, M., Burgess, N.D., Jensen, P.M., Aniananasana, H., Karky, B.S., Lewis, R.,
Lovett, J.C., Massao, J., Ngaga, Y., Phartiyal, P., Poulsen, M.K., Singh, S.P., Solis, S., Sorensen, M.,
Tewari, A., Young, R. & Zahabu, E.M. 2011, "At the heart of REDD+: a role for the local people in
monitoring forests?", Conservation letters, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 158-167.
Dirix, J., Peeters, W., Sterckx, S., 2016. Is the Clean Development Mechanism delivering benefits to
the poorest communities in the developing world? A critical evaluation and proposals for reform.
Environ Dev Sustain 18, 839–855. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-015-9680-8
Donofrio, S., Maguire, P., Merry, W., Zwick, S., 2019. Financing Emissions Reductions
for the Future State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets 2019
Dove, M.R., 1983. Theories of swidden agriculture, and the political economy of ignorance.
Agroforestry systems, 1(2), pp.85-99.
Elasha, B.O., Elhassan, N.G., Ahmed, H., Zakieldin, S., 2005. Sustainable livelihood approach for
assessing community resilience to climate change: case studies from Sudan 26.
Estrada, M. & Corbera, E. 2012, "The Potential of Carbon Offsetting Projects in the Forestry Sector for
Poverty Reduction in Developing Countries" in Springer New York, New York, NY, pp. 137-147
Fassbender, S., 2016. Forest Conservation and the Hadzabe. An integrated approach in protecting
biodiversity and cultural diversity. Case study: Carbon Tanzania.
FCPF, U.R., 2012. Guidelines on Stakeholder Engagement in REDD+ Readiness with a Focus on the
Participation of Indigenous Peoples and Other Forest-Dependent Communities. 25 March. World Bank,
Washington DC.
Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, 2016. 2016 ANNUAL REPORT
Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, 2019. 2019 ANNUAL REPORT
Galletta, A. and Cross, W. (2013) ‘Ongoing and Iterative Data Analysis’, in Mastering the Semi-
Structured Interview and Beyond. NYU Press (From Research Design to Analysis and Publication), pp.
119–146. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qgh5x.9 (Accessed: 18 May 2020).
Galik, C.S., Mobley, M.L. & deB. Richter, D. 2009, "A virtual “field test” of forest management carbon
offset protocols: the influence of accounting", Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change,
vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 677-690.
Gehring, M. and Phillips, F.K., 2016. Intersections of the Paris Agreement and Carbon Offsetting: legal
and functional considerations. Markus Gehring, Freedom-Kai Phillips,“Intersections of the Paris
Agreement and Carbon Offsetting: Legal and Functional Considerations” CIGI Policy Brief, (88).
Grain, 2015. REDD Alert! How REDD+ projects undermine peasant farming and real solutions
to climate change, Available from <https://www.grain.org/article/entries/5322-how-redd-projects-
undermine-peasant-farming-and-real-solutions-to-climate-
change#:~:text=The%20reality%20is%20that%20REDD%2B,access%20to%20lands%20and%20fore
sts.> accessed 14th June 2020
Grieg-Gran, M., Porras, I. & Wunder, S. 2005, "How can market mechanisms for forest environmental
services help the poor? Preliminary lessons from Latin America", World Development, vol. 33, no. 9,
pp. 1511-1527.
Hamrick, K. and Gallant, M., 2017. Unlocking Potential: State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets,
Ecosystem Marketplace, Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace.”.
Hayes, T. & Persha, L. 2010, "Nesting local forestry initiatives: Revisiting community forest
management in a REDD+ world", Forest Policy and Economics, vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 545-553.
38
Hayes, T., Persha, L., 2010. Nesting local forestry initiatives: Revisiting community forest management
in a REDD+ world. Forest Policy and Economics 12, 545–553.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2010.07.003
Howard, R.J., Tallontire, A., Stringer, L. & Marchant, R. 2015, "Unraveling the Notion of “Fair
Carbon”: Key Challenges for Standards Development", World Development, vol. 70, pp. 343-356.
Karhunmaa, K., 2016. Opening up storylines of co-benefits in voluntary carbon markets: An analysis
of household energy technology projects in developing countries. Energy Research & Social Science
14, 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.01.011
Kvale, S., 1938-2008 1996, Interviews: an introduction to qualitative research interviewing, SAGE,
Thousand Oaks.
Lee, J., Ingalls, M., Erickson, J.D. and Wollenberg, E., 2016. Bridging organizations in agricultural
carbon markets and poverty alleviation: An analysis of pro-Poor carbon market projects in East Africa.
Global Environmental Change, 39, pp.98-107.
Lewis, M.P., 2009. Ethnologue: Languages of the world . Dallas, TX: SIL International. Online version
for Languages of Uganda.
Lipper, L. & Cavatassi, R. 2004, "Land-Use Change, Carbon Sequestration and Poverty Alleviation",
Environmental Management, vol. 33, no. S1, pp. S374-S387.
Loaiza, T., Nehren, U. and Gerold, G., 2015. REDD+ and incentives: An analysis of income generation
in forest-dependent communities of the Yasuní Biosphere Reserve, Ecuador. Applied Geography, 62,
pp.225-236.
Lovell, H., Liverman, D., 2010. Understanding Carbon Offset Technologies. New Political Economy
15, 255–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563460903548699
Marion Suiseeya, K.R. & Caplow, S. 2013, "In pursuit of procedural justice: Lessons from an analysis
of 56 forest carbon project designs", Global Environmental Change, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 968-979.
Mider, z., & Quigley, J., 2020. Disney’s Jungle Cruise: High-emission vacations lead to trouble in a
rainforest far, far away. Available from < https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-disney-peru-
deforestation/> accessed 14th June 2020
McKercher, B., Prideaux, B., Cheung, C., Law, R., 2010. Achieving voluntary reductions in the carbon
footprint of tourism and climate change. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18, 297–317.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580903395022
Milder, J.C., Scherr, S.J. and Bracer, C., 2010. Trends and future potential of payment for ecosystem
services to alleviate rural poverty in developing countries. Ecology and Society, 15(2).
Miles, W.B., 2020. The invisible commodity: Local experiences with forest carbon offsetting in
Indonesia. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 251484862090523.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848620905235
Morse, S., McNamara, N., 2013. Sustainable Livelihood Approach. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6268-8
Nantongo, M., Vatn, A., Vedeld, P., 2019. All that glitters is not gold; Power and participation in
processes and structures of implementing REDD+ in Kondoa, Tanzania. Forest Policy and Economics
100, 44–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.10.011
Olsen, K.H., Fenhann, J., 2008. Sustainable development benefits of clean development mechanism
projects. Energy Policy 36, 2819–2830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.02.039
Pagiola, S., Arcenas, A., Platais, G., 2005. Can Payments for Environmental Services Help Reduce
Poverty? An Exploration of the Issues and the Evidence to Date from Latin America. World
Development 33, 237–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.07.011
39
Palmer, C. & Silber, T. 2012, "Trade-offs between carbon sequestration and rural incomes in the
N'hambita Community Carbon Project, Mozambique", Land Use Policy, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 83.
Parrotta, J.A., Wildburger, C., Mansourian, S. (Eds.), 2012. Understanding relationships between
biodiversity, carbon, forests and people: the key to achieving REDD+ objectives ; a global assessment
report ; prepared by the global forest expert panel on biodiversity, forest management and REDD+,
IUFRO world series. International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO), Vienna.
Paterson, M., Stripple, J., 2012. Virtuous carbon. Environmental Politics 21, 563–582.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2012.688354
Peras, R.J., Pulhin, J., Inoue, M., Mohammed, A.J., Harada, K., Sasaoka, M., 2016. The Sustainable
Livelihood Challenge of REDD+ Implementation in the Philippines. ENRR 6, 91.
https://doi.org/10.5539/enrr.v6n3p91
Peskett, L., Luttrell, C., and Brown, D., 2006. Making voluntary carbon markets work better for the
poor: the case of forestry offsets. Forestry Briefing, 11 .
Peskett, L., Schreckenberg, K., Brown, J., 2011. Institutional approaches for carbon financing in the
forest sector: learning lessons for REDD+ from forest carbon projects in Uganda. Environmental
Science & Policy 14, 216–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.10.004
Phelps, J., Webb, E.L. & Agrawal, A. 2010, "Does REDD+ Threaten to Recentralize Forest
Governance?", Science, vol. 328, no. 5976, pp. 312-313.
Qu, S.Q., Dumay, J., 2011. The qualitative research interview. Qualitative Res Acc & Man 8, 238–264.
https://doi.org/10.1108/11766091111162070
R.A. Asare and D. Gohil 2016. The Evolution of REDD+ Finance in Five African Countries: Lessons
learned from the REDDX initiative in Africa, Forest Trends
Redford, K.H. and Adams, W.M., 2009. Payment for ecosystem services and the challenge of saving
nature. Conservation biology, 23(4), pp.785-787.
Reed, P., 2011. REDD+ and the indigenous question: a case study from Ecuador. Forests, 2(2), pp.525-
549.
Ribot, J., Agrawal, A. and Larson, A., 2006. Recentralizing While Decentralizing: How National
Governments Reappropriate Forest Resources. World Development 34: 1864-1886.
Richards, K.R., Huebner, G.E., 2012a. Evaluating protocols and standards for forest carbon-offset
programs, Part A: additionality, baselines and permanence. Carbon Management 3, 393–410.
https://doi.org/10.4155/cmt.12.38
Richards, K.R., Huebner, G.E., 2012b. Evaluating protocols and standards for forest carbon-offset
programs, Part B: leakage assessment, wood products, validation and verification. Carbon Management
3, 411–425. https://doi.org/10.4155/cmt.12.39
Schmidt, L., Gerber, K., 2016. A comparison of carbon market standards for REDD+ projects,
Published by Germanwatch e.V.
Scoones, I., 1998. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods a Framework for Analysis 22.
Shanee, N., 2019. Reclaim Conservation: Conservation Discourse and Initiatives of the Rondas
Campesinas, North-Eastern Peru. Conservat Soc 17, 270. https://doi.org/10.4103/cs.cs_18_6
Shanee, N., Shanee, S., Horwich, R.H., 2015. Effectiveness of locally run conservation initiatives in
north-east Peru. Oryx 49, 239–247. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605313001002
Share of economic sectors in the GDP in Peru 2018, Statista
<https://www.statista.com/statistics/459389/share-of-economic-sectors-in-the-gdp-in-peru/> accessed
8th May 2020
40
Sunderlin, W.D., Larson, A.M., Duchelle, A.E., Resosudarmo, I.A.P., Huynh, T.B., Awono, A. and
Dokken, T., 2014. How are REDD+ proponents addressing tenure problems? Evidence from Brazil,
Cameroon, Tanzania, Indonesia, and Vietnam. World Development, 55, pp.37-52.
The role of multi-stakeholder forums in subnational jurisdictions: The Alto Mayo Protected Forest’s
Management Committee, 2019. Center For International Forestry Registry (CIFOR)
<http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/flyer/7401-AltoMayo-Flyer.pdf> accessed 9th May 2020
- Sarmiento Barletti, J.P.; Larson, A.M.
Tremblay, S., & Lowry, W., 2016, Ancient hunter-gatherer tribe protects traditional forest with help
from carbon trading, <https://news.mongabay.com/2016/11/ancient-hunter-gatherer-tribe-protects-
traditional-forest-with-help-from-carbon-trading/> [accessed 24 May 2020]
Ujamaa Community Resource Team, 2020. Securing Land Rights for the Hadzabe,
<http://www.ujamaa-crt.org/securing-land-rights-for-the-hadzabe.html> [accessed 24 May 2020]
Valqui, M., Feather, C., Espinosa Llanos, R., 2015. Revealing the Hidden Indigenous Perspectives on
Deforestation in the Peruvian Amazon: The Causes and the Solutions, Edited by: AIDESEP (Inter
Ethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Amazon) and FPP (Forest Peoples
Programme).
http://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/publication/2015/02/fppperureportenglishinternetfinalaug
32015.pdf
van Hulst, M., Yanow, D., 2009. From Policy “‘Frames’” to “‘Framing’”: Theorizing a More Dynamic,
Political Approach. American Review of Public Administration 22.
Vangen, C., 2009. Evicted in the name of nature: the process of eviction and its impact on local rural
livelihoods in Mount Elgon, Uganda.
Verra, 2013, Disney, Latam Airlines Buy 444,000 Peruvian VCUs, <https://verra.org/disney-latam-
airlines-buy-444000-peruvian-vcus/> [accessed 31 May 2020]
Verra, 2017, VCS Turns 10! Celebrating our History and Looking to the Future <https://verra.org/vcs-
turns-10-celebrating-our-history-and-looking-to-the-future/> [accessed 31 May 2020]
Wang, Y., Corson, C., 2015. The making of a ‘charismatic’ carbon credit: clean cookstoves and
‘uncooperative’ women in western Kenya. Environ Plan A 47, 2064–2079.
https://doi.org/10.1068/a130233p
Wendt, K., 2015. Responsible investment banking. Springer, 10, pp.978-3.
World Bank Group, 2017. Growing the Rural Nonfarm Economy to Alleviate Poverty, Available from
< https://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/sites/default/files/Data/Evaluation/files/RuralNonFarm.pdf>
[accessed 21 June 2020]
Yaffee, S.L., Wondolleck, J.M. and Lippman, S., 1997. Factors that Promote and Constrain Bridging.
Yin, R. K. 2003. Case study research: Design and method (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
Yin, R.K. 2018, Case study research and applications: design and methods, Sixth edn, SAGE, Los
Angeles.
Project Validation and Verification Documents
AENOR Internacional, S.A.U, 2018. 4th Verification Report for The Project Alto Mayo Conservation
Initiative, Available from <https://registry.verra.org/app/projectDetail/VCS/944> accessed [4th June
2020]
Anderson, J., Baker, M., and Bede, J., 2015. Project Design Document: Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and Forest Degradation in the Yaeda Valley, Northern Tanzania, Available from:
< https://products.markit.com/br-reg/public/project.jsp?project_id=103000000004180> [4th June
2020]
41
Baker, M., 2020. Annual Report: Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in
the Yaeda Valley, Northern Tanzania, Available from: < https://products.markit.com/br-
reg/public/project.jsp?project_id=103000000004180> [4th June, 2020]
Conservation International, 2018. Alto Mayo Conservation Initiative Monitoring & Implementation
No4, Available from <https://registry.verra.org/app/projectDetail/VCS/944> accessed [4th June
2020]
Conservation International-Peru, 2012. Alto Mayo Conservation Initiative Project
Description, Available from < https://registry.verra.org/app/projectDetail/VCS/944> [4th June, 2020]
Equator Initiative, 2019. Equator Prize: What is the Equator Prize?, Available from
<https://www.equatorinitiative.org/equator-prize/> accessed [4th June 2020]
Plan Vivo, 2013. Terms of Reference for Project Verification for Reduced Emissions from Deforestation
and Forest Degradation–Plus (REDD+), Available from:
<https://www.planvivo.org/docs/PlanVivo_TOR_REDD_Verification-Yaeda_Final.pdf>
[4th June, 2020]
SCS Global Services, 2012. CCBA Project Validation and Verification Report: Alto Mayo
Conservation Initiative, San Martin, Peru, Available from
<https://registry.verra.org/app/projectDetail/VCS/944> accessed [4th June 2020]
Sudheendra, K., 2018. Validation and Verification Statement for REDD+ in Yaeda Valley – Tanzania,
Released by EPIC Sustainability Services, Available from:
<https://www.planvivo.org/docs/Verification_Statement_Yaeda-Valley.pdf> [4th June, 2020]
Verra, 2017. CCB & VCS Monitoring Report Template, Available from <https://verra.org/project/ccb-
program/rules-requirements-and-guidance/> accessed [4th June 2020]
Interviews
Interview with Braulio Andrade, Alto Mayo Protected Forest Project Director, CI-Peru, conducted over
Skype on 19th March 2020.
Interview with Jo Anderson, Yaeda Valley REDD Project Director, Carbon Tanzania, conducted over
Skype on 20th March 2020.
