Today, we focus on one of the most sensitive topics around carbon credits.
Local and Indigenous communities play a crucial role as guardians of the landscape and the forests. They are the people on the front lines of the deforestation challenge and often the stewards of sustainable land management. Aligning with the priorities and following the guidance of local and Indigenous communities is essential for the success of every project that involves nature-based solutions.
But here’s the twist: “Local communities” are often far more complex than how outsiders perceive them. It begins with a fundamental question: who qualifies as a “local community” and who does not? Does it include a poor migrant worker who labours on the land? Or a wealthy landowner who has recently purchased a piece of forest?
Adding to the complexity, “local communities” seldom present a unified voice. They are frequently divided by internal tensions, disputes, and ethical dilemmas that outsiders may struggle to grasp. In some cases, cultural traditions – or simply economic interests – directly clash with conservation goals.
Land ownership is another layer of complexity—often unclear, contested, or disputed. Traditional land ownership systems often clash with government-imposed land registries, creating further friction and uncertainty.
This leads to a paradox: Involving the views of all stakeholders is a crucial component of any project that generates carbon credits. However, reaching a 100 per cent consensus and satisfaction across all stakeholders is usually impossible. Even in the best-planned project, you will inevitably find people who feel disadvantaged or whose views weren’t fully considered.
Requiring 100 per cent consensus, paradoxically, may well mean that the project won’t start at all.
Have you experienced this paradox in your project? How did you address it?
Leave a Reply