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

and duration of employment, the stability of markets for carbon and other traditional sources of
income, and the management and funding of projects (Peskett et al. 2008). Greater income stability can
allow households to better cope with short-term shocks and emergencies and ensure basic needs are
met more consistently (Grieg-Gran et al. 2005).
On the other hand, if long-term carbon projects restrict certain productive activities, then communities
may lose both income and flexibility in their livelihood strategies to cope and respond to shocks and
emergencies. For example, A/R projects can reduce the area available for food crop production (Smith &
Scherr 2002). This occurred in the TFGB project in Uganda where some households lost customary
access to idle lands when neighbors established woodlots for carbon payments. There the loss of
agricultural lands to carbon forestry led some families to rent land for cultivation, whereas other
families that could not secure sufficient cultivable land had to buy food (Carter 2009). As explained
under natural capital (below), restrictions on access to forest resources could particularly harm poor
rural people for whom the forests serve as a social ‘safety net’.
An influx of cash from carbon projects to households and communities may have negative social
implications. Communities that receive a large transfer of monetary wealth in rural areas with weak
governance face the risks of mismanagement, corruption, and ‘elite capture’ (Angelsen & Wertz-
Kanounnikoff 2008; Peskett et al. 2008). 14
In the case of REDD+ projects, Brown et al. (2008, 113)
caution that “large new financial flows would likely fuel conflict and create new opportunities for
corruption.” Also the benefits of carbon payments or employment may be limited in remote rural areas
where poor people use forests for subsistence production and have limited access to local markets.
Peskett et al. (2008) observe that where people cannot easily obtain basic goods (including subsistence
products) with cash, the benefit of cash could even be negative.
Social Capital
Increased social cohesion and trust inside communities have been cited as positive indirect outcomes of
agroforestry carbon projects involving smallholders and community organizations (Jindal 2010, Tacconi
et al. 2009; Carter 2009). This and the strengthening of community-based organizations are common
outcomes of carbon projects implemented with local counterparts, whether or not it is an explicit
project objective. More specifically, community groups can develop social coordination capacities as
well as increased visibility, representation, and negotiation abilities vis-à-vis government authorities and
donors (Wunder 2008). Strategic visibility makes it easier to attract outside support for projects that
create physical capital such as the construction of schools, health clinics, and roads.
Other important forms of social capital that may be directly or indirectly affected by carbon projects are
land tenure security and resource rights. Significant international concern exists about the impact of
14 Bond et al. (2009, 21) warn that poor local governance could lead REDD+ to “create perverse incentives to
increase emissions and threaten the rights and livelihoods of forest dependent communities.”
Social Impact Assessment of Land-Based Carbon Projects (1.0) – Part II | 84