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

these strategic resource off-limits, increasing the risk of deeper poverty (Angelsen & Wunder 2003, 21).
Reduced access to food and other essentials provided by the forest could also result in negative impacts
on local nutrition and health.
The market for land and other forms of natural capital (price and availability) may also be affected if
restrictions are applied over large areas (Peskett et al. 2008). Increased competition for land and natural
resources could cause land prices to rise and put land ownership beyond the reach of the poor, or under
the worst circumstances, lead to the displacement of landless people (Grieg-Gran et al. 2005). Although
the CCB standards require projects to demonstrate that they do not require involuntary relocation of
people or key livelihoods, some of the indirect market effects are difficult to foresee or measure (CCBA
2008). Projects that overlook or fail to account for informal or customary rights could feed social
grievances and conflict that affect the local population and the viability of the conservation initiative
itself (Corbera 2007).
Likewise, to the extent that REDD+ projects take agricultural land out of production and/or limit the
expansion of agriculture, they could affect local commodity markets and food prices (Peskett et al.
2008). It is theorized that higher local food prices could positively affect net commodity/food producers,
but would negatively affect net commodity/food consumers (Peskett et al. 2009). REDD+ mechanisms
may also affect local commodity/food prices by reducing the availability of NTFPs or restricting hunting
in protected forests. Increases in food prices could lead to reductions in food consumption, substitution
of higher quality foods with basic staples, and reduced spending on competing priorities such as
schooling, clothing, health, and housing (Peskett et al. 2008). In contrast, if REDD mechanisms are
combined with or include agricultural intensification or alternative livelihood activities that increase
agricultural production, then forest conservation and local food production could both increase (Peskett
et al. 2008).
Gender and Equity Impacts
Whereas the literature on carbon projects and PES schemes often considers outcomes and impacts for
financial or natural livelihood capitals, little attention has been given to the gender dimensions of these
mechanisms. Few studies consider how projects affect the distribution of benefits, division of labor, and
participation in decision-making in households and communities. 18
An analysis of the gender impacts of
the Noel Kempff Mercado Climate Action Project in Bolivia, found that while the project focused on
women’s practical needs, (e.g. health, education, income-generation, and food production), other
“strategic gender needs” were not addressed that could “empower women, challenge the existing
gender division of labor, and bring about greater gender equality” (Boyd 2002, 75). Projects therefore
18 Exceptions include the analysis by Jindal (2010) of the Nhambita Community Carbon Project in Mozambique,
which briefly addresses how carbon projects have affected women’s workload, and Boyd (2002).
Social Impact Assessment of Land-Based Carbon Projects (1.0) – Part II | 88