More than 220 communities in Sierra Leone have signed a benefit-sharing carbon agreement with a developer that will help protect a key mangrove ecosystem.
Namati Sierra Leone, a legal advocacy group counseling all involved communities, said the agreement between the communities in the chiefdom of Sittia in Bonthe district and the Africa Conservation Initiative (ACI) is based on “carbon justice principles” aimed at making carbon projects fairer for communities.
The agreement targets the protection of roughly 79,000 hectares (about 195,213 acres) of mangroves in the Sherbro River Estuary, which hosts roughly half of the country’s mangrove forests. The estuary’s mangroves are threatened by growing demand for wood for cooking, smoking fish, farming and construction, according to James Harding, Sierra Leone director of West Africa Blue, ACI’s parent company.
The benefit-sharing agreement to protect these mangrove forests has been designed with reference to six carbon justice principles, said Daniel Sesay from Namati Sierra Leone. These principles were established by a global network of grassroots organizations based on their experience with past carbon projects.
The principles include “Fair participation,” where communities lead the stewardship of the natural resource; “No pay to pollute,” preventing polluters failing to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions from buying carbon credits; and “Free, prior and informed consent (FPIC)” of the communities — where “informed” also means disclosing all financial information throughout the project’s life cycle.
To reduce dependency on mangrove wood, ACI’s carbon project is offering communities alternatives, including efficient cookstoves and fish-smoking ovens, planting timber woodlots, and access to capital, Harding told Mongabay by email.
Independent audits will determine how much greenhouse gas reductions occur from these efforts and from mangrove restoration, after which ACI will be issued carbon credits that organizations can buy to offset their emissions, Harding added.
ACI has “agreed to follow specific criteria in selecting buyers,” which include not selling to buyers who don’t do enough to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Sesay said.
Transparency and accountability provisions in the agreement also “oblige the proponent to disclose sales and other related information,” he added.
Isa Mulder from Belgium-based think tank Carbon Market Watch, who wasn’t involved in the agreement, told Mongabay that the lack of price transparency is a huge barrier to communities being able to judge if they’re getting a fair share. Financial transparency, if it’s implemented, would be a “breakthrough,” she said.
“Fair compensation” is also a key climate justice principle, and Bonthe communities are set to receive 40-50% of gross revenue from the sale of carbon credits.
Some other carbon projects have a profit-sharing model, but these can get complicated, Sesay said. Developers might reinvest and expand a project over many years, making it unclear when profits actually begin, and communities typically lack access to the developer’s financial records to be able to determine actual profits.
“We have [had] some bad experience with profit share,” Sesay said. “We had to push away from profit share and stick to revenue share.”
ACI will retain between 42.5 and 52.5% of the gross revenue, while the government of Sierra Leone will receive 7.5-15.5%, Harding said.
“[The agreement] is a step in the right direction for the voluntary carbon market to address the many deep-rooted issues of fairness and even human rights violations,” Mulder said.
“These carbon justice principles were established by a diverse group of grassroots justice organisations and in my view, they embody what’s at the core of fair carbon markets,” she added.
“With Namati’s guidance, our communities gained confidence in partnering with ACI, ensuring youth participation,” Sandy Rogers, a youth leader in Sittia Chiefdom, said in a statement. “We anticipate employment and development for our communities.”
Sesay said it remains to be seen how the agreement is actually implemented. “We have to see how communities themselves will actually distribute their revenue; this a huge amount of money and the committees are not used to this amount of money,” he said.
“We also have to see how the proponents themselves play out the transparency and accountability, disclosing of buyers, and how communities will change their approach in using the mangroves to a more sustainable one.”
)
)
)