We talk about co-benefits and poverty alleviation and FPIC compliance, and often think that we have somehow saved ourselves from the tag of low quality carbon credits. However, how many of the co benefits we talk about are PR exercises and how many of them, real - now that is a question that begs to be answered.

Forest carbon projects often promote their community co-benefits - schools, clean water, jobs, infrastructure, bee keeping courses (yes, that is real) as a selling point. Now, co-benefits are an important aspect of carbon credits, an important parameter rather. We do not believe that we can develop a project that can in any way be detrimental to the environment or the indigenous population around. While some projects genuinely improve local livelihoods, others use co-benefits as a public relations tool, masking ineffective or even harmful practices. (Case in point - Cordillera Azul National Park REDD+ project in Peru, which has been widely used by companies such as BP, Disney, and Microsoft). The issue arises when co-benefits function as a mechanism for justifying poor carbon accounting or overlooking environmental failures. If a project claims to have successfully mitigated deforestation while simultaneously providing social services, it becomes difficult to challenge that assertion, even when empirical data indicates otherwise. There have also been instances where people living inside the project are completely unaware of the project being registered and been generating carbon credits.

Here, in this article, we examine the differentiation between substantive co-benefits and superficial public relations strategies to enhance the understanding of genuine impact in forest carbon markets.

The Spectrum of Community Co-Benefits

Not all co-benefits contribute equitably to long-term sustainability and community resilience. The most substantive benefits involve direct monetary transfers to local stakeholders, ensuring financial autonomy and self-determination. Secure land tenure and legal rights represent another critical factor, as they provide local and Indigenous communities with formalised control over land-use decisions, fostering sustainable management practices - Ostrom’s design principles much? Also, in the words of Dr. Elias Ayrey, it becomes a humanitarian disaster to deprive the community of monetary benefits. Also, "we need to remember that carbon credits are actually a form of natural capital extraction .... and something of commensurate value needs to be returned to the community, otherwise this is literally colonialism" So, how should it ideally be? Direct payments with publicly accessible proof and a lot of projects (listed ones) do this. Second best could be payment to the community or an elected council, which can be absolutely transparent. Employment opportunities linked to conservation and sustainable industries offer another pathway to economic resilience, provided they are stable, adequately remunerated, and scalable. Fourth in hierarchy are investments in infrastructure and public services, such as schools, healthcare facilities, and potable water systems, which are legit tangible.  Capacity-building programs that enhance knowledge transfer and technical skills in sustainable land management are great but this has by and again been misused. For example, you cannot be using someone’s land for a carbon credit project and throw a bee keeping course at them in return. That clearly does not sound right.

How PR-Driven Co-Benefits Undermine Carbon Markets

When co-benefits obscure fundamental issues in carbon credit projects, they undermine the credibility of carbon markets. The manipulation of baselines is one of the most significant risks, as inflated deforestation rates in reference scenarios can lead to over-crediting, while the presence of highly visible co-benefits provides a moral justification for these distortions. Additionally, environmental failures, such as ineffective forest protection or continued deforestation within project areas, can go unreported when the project's social contributions shield it from scrutiny.

Case Study

The Kasigau Corridor conservation project in southern Kenya - A recent investigation into a REDD+ project in the Congo Basin which has been used by Netflix and Shell for carbon offsets, revealed severe human rights violations, including allegations of sexual exploitation, forced evictions, and coercive enforcement practices. This case underscores how an emphasis on co-benefits can deflect accountability, allowing both human rights violations and environmental shortcomings to persist under the guise of sustainability. However, the broader implications highlight the need for rigorous scrutiny and verification and validation and quality analysis to ensure that social impact narratives do not mask fundamental flaws.

The Role of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC)

FPIC ensures that local and Indigenous communities have the right to be fully informed about projects affecting their land and livelihoods and the ability to accept or reject them without coercion and with complete free will.  When properly implemented, FPIC safeguards against exploitative projects, ensuring that co-benefits align with the actual needs and aspirations of the communities. From a business perspective, projects that secure FPIC are less likely to face legal challenges, reputational issues and operational disruptions which have taken place due to community opposition.

Potential solution: Accountability & Transparency

Again, the solution remains-  transparency. If social benefits are part of quality parameters and we cater to making real impact, the case of apish co-benfits.  Independent auditing mechanisms should help too. Transparent financial flow tracking is that one thing which can solve this and it also adheres to the Core Carbon Principles. On a more academic note, for guidance,  turn to Ostrom!

A good example would be The Katingan Mentaya Project in Indonesia which  is a notable REDD+ initiative. It is aimed at conserving the Katingan Mentaya peatland in Central Kalimantan, one of the world's largest and most biodiverse peat swamp forests.

On the social benefits front, it engages local communities in sustainable land-use practices by providing alternative livelihoods, such as eco-tourism, sustainable agriculture, and employment in conservation activities. Villagers are actively involved in protecting the forest, and FPIC protocols, they receive monetary compensation for their participation in conservation and sustainable practices. The project has contributed to poverty alleviation and capacity building by training local communities in sustainable agricultural practices and forest management.

The project is certified under the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) and Climate, Community & Biodiversity Standards (CCB), which ensure that both the environmental and social benefits are rigorously monitored and verified. Government data from the Indonesian Ministry of Environment and Forestry (KLHK) - details can be found at https://statistik.menlhk.go.id/sisklhkX/data_statistik

Independent reports from The Nature Conservatory confirm that the project has successfully reduced emissions, enhanced biodiversity, and improved the livelihoods of local communities.

It wasn’t easy finding good examples of carbon credits and that just goes on to show how there is a gap here. By integrating social benefits as a parameter to determine quality and making this non-negotiable, we can believably try to build a more equitable carbon credit world.