Isn’t carbon pricing a good thing?
…the social and ecological costs…are profound…
Despite Green Resources’ broad claims that its activities address and even mitigate climate change while simultaneously delivering positive social and environmental outcomes at the local level, the activities of this company can be interpreted as being marred by social disruption, adverse livelihood impacts, and environmental problems. The violent take over of land has clearly adversely affected local food security and food sovereignty, sustainable livelihoods, and environmental sustainability. In short, the social and ecological costs of Green Resources’ carbon trade projects in Uganda appear to be profound, placing villagers’ already marginalized status into a dangerously precarious position.
…carbon trade initiatives do not always deliver positive local level development…
While many hope carbon markets, including Green Resources’ development projects, will be part of the solution to the problem of climate change, this report demonstrates carbon trade initiatives do not, by default, deliver positive local level development. Yet these are the very claims on which green resources trades; boasting that their activities deliver on climate change mitigation, producing quality wood products, and providing community development and poverty alleviation in Uganda.
This case reveals that pricing carbon imposes new forms of livelihood constraint and abuse, including out-sourcing environmental responsibility for addressing climate change to the global south. Carbon market monitoring and regulations, including via the Forest Stewardship Council, Clean Development Mechanism, and Climate Community and Biodiversity Standards and other governance arrangements, appear ill-equipped to detect, or respond so as to remedy, these adverse impacts.