Asking the right questions

Growing high-integrity carbon projects that work for people and nature.

By Nakau

May 15^th, 2023

There are lessons in developing a high-integrity approach to carbon projects in the Pacific region. One of the biggest, is the importance of approaching a conservation carbon project by asking the right questions and following a best-practice approach.

Indigenous landowners and communities have a right to receive an income for the time, labour and knowledge — both traditional and new — they invest in protecting a forest or any other ecosystem. Globally, we all benefit from the carbon sequestered in the forest, and a community benefits from an income they can reinvest in community projects, livelihoods and their own strengthened climate resilience.

Here, we outline some key steps towards developing a high-integrity carbon project that will help protect nature and value local culture and experience in the process. These steps were developed by Nakau, including through projects supported by the Australian Government’s Climate Resilient by Nature (CRxN) initiative.

Have a clear set of criteria — and stick to them

As part of the CRxN project, Nakau and Live & Learn developed an in-depth site screening tool that identifies potential sites and helps eliminate risks associated with carbon projects so they can have the best outcomes for communities, nature and climate.

We recently tested it out in Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands to help select potential forest carbon project sites.

The site screening tool guides the process through a list of questions designed to assess the eligibility and suitability of a site – important criteria for understanding how feasible and financially viable a project will be.

Eligibility refers to the tight parameters set by a carbon Standard, in our case Plan Vivo. This is critical because we cannot run a carbon project if we don’t meet Standard requirements. These criteria delve into threats to a forest from logging, land-clearing and agriculture. Learnings from the site selection process also need to be supported by geospatial and other mapping data that demonstrates evidence of the forest threat over time, including country forest loss assessments.

Suitability refers to more flexible criteria for choosing a site. Questions cover clear land boundaries and land rights, the size and condition of the forest, and the kastom surrounding how a forest is used. These questions help identify if a community values conservation, and how they work together and share resources so there is certainty everyone will benefit fairly from a project.

Suitability questions also look at access to services — how remote is the site, can they get to town or do they have phone reception? We also learn about the social cohesion within a community because we aim to work with tribal groups with strong customary and family links, and who already collaborate well.

Be clear about the nature and scale of threats to the forest

Many high-value forests worthy of conservation may not be eligible for forest carbon projects, which focus on deforestation and degradation. Even for eligible sites, the type of threat, and the scale and characteristics of the threat can have a big impact on the final feasibility of a project — sometimes more so than the quality of the forest threatened.

The site screening tool helps project developers be totally clear about the threat to a forest. Understanding this is critical for two key reasons:

1. So communities are aware of what they are engaging in, why their forest is or is not eligible for a carbon project, and exactly what a carbon project will support them to achieve.

2. To avoid overestimating the credit volumes produced by either over emphasising the baseline threat, or the real impact of the project, known as additionality. We calculate our credits to ensure they are real and additional — they must represent actual carbon emissions reductions to make for high integrity projects.

Avoid raising expectations too early and consult with care

Nakau and Live & Learn take care when talking to communities to avoid raising expectations too soon. As part of the site selection process, the eligibility, suitability and feasibility must be established before approaching a community with a proposal to jointly develop a project. We need to be certain a community will receive benefits to support their work adequately for the next 30 years.

This approach builds on our existing and long-held practice of investing deeply in consultation and education with local communities before they decide to engage in a carbon project. All project decision-making must be clear, transparent and controlled by customary landholders and their community. To do this, Nakau adheres to a high FPIC (free, prior and informed consent) standard. We take time to sit, listen and make a project together that works with culture and meets community needs.

This high-integrity process is behind the success of many of our projects in the Pacific, like the Loru Forest Carbon Project, the Babatana Rainforest Conservation Project and the Drawa Forest Project.

Be informed by kastom and traditional knowledge

Questions that seek to understand existing kastom and traditional conservation approaches help identify how knowledge is already being used in a potential project site, and how building on this can make a carbon project more locally relevant and culturally significant for people.

Listen for nuances in the way questions are answered where customary processes may use a different approach to conflict resolution or land use. Open questions that help understand all the angles also help test assumptions and spotlight differences between villages and communities in a similar country context.

At Nakau and Live & Learn, we also ensure kastom (custom) is valued within consultation processes and decision-making, and included in the project design. If there is a custom process for conservation or data collection, we will try and use this too rather than relying on a western process. In Vanuatu, kastom tabu tree leaf signs are traditionally used to mark no-go areas. These markers are now being adapted by landowners in carbon projects, like the Loru Conservation Project which has a wider Tabu over the forest to support the legal protection and offer greater cultural significance for the community. This is a decision suggested and led by the community.

Take a whole community approach — apply the GEDSI lens at every stage

Carbon projects we develop ensure benefits are shared fairly within a community — it’s how the Nakau Methodology is designed. But we also need to listen to all voices when selecting a site, and ensure women, people with disabilities and other marginalised groups can have a voice and a role in the project from the beginning.

The site selection tool and feasibility questions investigate how women and others are involved in a community, how they access and use resources, and if they have decision-making power. The tool acknowledges the Pacific context has a complicated and unique social structure and explores ways to leverage these structures to increase involvement of women and others who may not always have a decision-making role. Finding critical entry points to this work is important and to remain sensitive to local culture while making sure the carbon project does not contribute to disadvantages experienced by women and others in a community.

Long and flexible timelines are required to partner effectively in a cross-cultural setting.

Cross-cultural consultation takes time and flexibility to be done properly. Many of the skills needed are rights-based community development approaches that can be left behind when the demands of the market are prioritised at the expense of local community concerns.

Here are some ways we prioritise a rights-based approach:

Nakau will often take 2-3 years and include 20-30 community meetings in the process for developing a forest carbon project with a community.
We build in time and cost buffers around certain processes. For example, we cannot predict how long each FPIC stage will take but flexibility around budgets allow the time communities need to make big decisions.
We support communities to access independent legal advice so Indigenous landowners can freely seek answers to their questions in language and away from us as a project developer.

“A partnership approach is crucial for realising the important values of localising our work, practicing cross-cultural sensitivity and valuing Indigenous perspectives and knowledge.”

Partnership is the secret to success

Deep community engagement and ongoing partnership is the best way to ensure permanence of carbon projects and forest protection on Indigenous land. This is why the carbon projects we co-develop commit to a three-way partnership between Nakau, a local NGO and the community. It’s also why we are committed to ensuring at least 80% of income from carbon projects remains in the country where a project takes place, with a minimum of 60% going directly to community.

Partnership can also extend to community development and human rights practitioners that are much needed to help develop carbon projects that ensure people and nature remain the core purpose behind this work.

We cannot leave it to markets to solve issues related to human rights and social justice, nor can we deny customary landowners the right to benefit from the conservation work they do. Greater involvement of skilled community development actors in these market-based projects is a key ingredient in ensuring positive outcomes for customary landowners.

These site screening steps were recently built on while working in Vanuatu with support from the Australian Government’s Climate Resilient by Nature (CRxN) initiative. The approach can be applied across the Pacific region with adjustments to suit specific countries and cultural approaches.

This article also appears on the CRxN Knowledge Hub.

Footnotes

Photos (top to bottom). Header image: Serthiac Ranger Kaltabang Fred in the Loru Forest Conservation Area. (2) Kaltabang Fred in the Loru Forest with an old-growth tree. (3) Nakau’s Alex McClean and Live and Learn’s Rexly Bune discussing merremia (4) Using the site screening tool in central Santo. (5) Tabu sign in Loru and traditional tabu leaf (1981) courtesy University of San Diego library. (6) Khole village members who participate in the Loru Forest Project. (7) Central Santo is remote and hard to access. Photos: Marian Reid/Nakau.