Recent research has shed light on the various tradeoffs involved in carbon forestry, i.e. the pursuit of international forestry projects to help mitigate climate change. This article contributes to these debates by highlighting the importance of resource quality and degradation in evaluating project benefits and tradeoffs. Focusing on the case of an industrial tree plantation in Uganda, the Kachung Forest Project, we highlight how the livelihoods of communities surrounding the reserve have been affected by interlinked changes in local resource access and resource quality. We show that the project has brought about a significant degradation of fuelwood sources, grazing and cultivation lands, and potentially increased pressure on scarce water sources, which in turn contributed to increased poverty in the area. We also argue that the community development interventions that project actors have pursued have primarily delivered ï¿½benefits that capital can seeï¿½ quick-fix solutions that fit within the profit-maximizing logic in which the forest company operates, while obscuring the underlying and resource-dependent drivers of poverty. Our study calls for closer attention to the interlinked socioecological changes underpinning the foundational tradeoffs ï¿½ between cost-effective carbon sequestration and long-term environmental and developmental objectives ï¿½ in the industry forestry model analysed here.
"KFP is an afforestation project of 2099ha in Dokolo district, Uganda. It is operated by the Norwegian forestry company Green Resources and is situated within one of Uganda’s Central Forest Reserves (CFR), government-owned land designated for forestry that has been leased to the company. Registered as a project under the CDM in 2011, KFP is meant to run for a total of 60 years (Green Resources, 2012, 2017). The project consists of an industrial tree plantation dominated by fast-growing pine (Pinus Caribaea) and a lesser (9%) component of eucalypt (mostly Eucalyptus grandis) (Green Resources, 2012; Hardy and Whittington-Jones, 2017), both of which are used for the production of sawlogs and utility poles (Green Resources, 2017). Carbon credits from the project are owned by Green Resources and sold to the Swedish Energy Agency (SEA) as part of a 30-year agreement that is meant to deliver a total emission reduction of 365,000 tCO2e (Green Resources, 2012; SEA, 2016). In addition, and in line with prevailing ‘win-win’ narratives, KFP is meant to facilitate socioeconomic devel- opment through the ‘promotion of tree planting/afforestation activities in the local communities,’ which involves handing out pine seedlings to individual households so that they can establish woodlots on their own land. Other listed benefits include the ‘provision of employment op- portunities’ in the forest plantation, and using 10% of carbon credit revenues for the development of ‘local infrastructure including roads, health centers, water supply and communication systems’ in sur- rounding villages (Green Resources, 2012, p. 3). Green Resources (2012) in this way claims to ‘contribut[e] to mitigating climate change while meeting the growing demand for quality wood products from well managed plantation forests and contributing to sustainable en- vironmental management, community development and poverty alleviation in Uganda’ (p. 2). KFP is in many ways a rather improbable candidate for a sustainable development project. Even among other CDM forestry projects it stands out for its industrial approach and its near-total exclusion of local communities in its project design, implementation and benefit-sharing "
|Climate change impacts||Effect of Nbs on CCI||Effect measures|
|Reduced water availability||Unclear results||**No explicit outcome measure; based on interview statements Water availability: [unclear] depletion of water sources “the depletion of the spring has increased the pressure on remaining water sources, with some community members now needing to move longer distances to collect water.”|
KFP is an afforestation project of 2099ha in Dokolo district, Uganda...Fieldwork was focused on six villages (of 19 mentioned in the Project Design Document (PDD)1), chosen to reflect a geographical distribution among those closest to the plantation and therefore likely to have been most affected by the project.