Case Studies: Climate change projects for carbon emissions mitigation

 

Climate change projects for carbon emissions mitigation

Carbon projects: baseline gaming and benefit-sharing opacity

Nature-based carbon projects (e.g., REDD+ and voluntary offset schemes) can strengthen financing for forests—if their numbers are credible and if communities share in the benefits. A growing empirical record reveals systemic weaknesses in baselines, leakage, permanence, and safeguards, resulting in over-credited projects that deliver minimal real climate benefits (West et al., 2024; Berkeley Carbon Trading/Carbon Market Watch; The Guardian/Reuters, 2024–2025).

Two recurring integrity gaps:

1. Baselines and additionality. “Elastic methodologies” allow developers to set inflated deforestation baselines, so that mere continuation of the status quo yields large credits (CMW, 2023; West et al., 2024).
2. Benefit-sharing and land rights. Where tenure is contested or community voice is weak, revenue distribution becomes opaque, fueling conflict and undermining stewardship (CIFOR-ICRAF, 2023; Dermawan et al., CIFOR). (CIFOR-ICRAF, 2023; CIFOR, 2011).

Demand that projects establish transparent and publicly justified baselines, require independent audit of outcomes, implement mechanisms for grievance redress, ensure contracts publish community revenue shares, and guarantee communities the right to withhold consent.

Case studies

Philippines: mangrove planting drives— survival vs. reporting gaps

The Philippines has run waves of mangrove rehabilitation since the 1980s. The headline: large budgets and volunteer energy; the footnote: many sites failed because they planted the wrong species in the wrong places, counted seedlings instead of survival, and rushed projects without tenure clarity (Primavera, 2009/2012; Barnuevo et al., 2017).

• Species-site mismatch. Planting Rhizophora on open sandy beaches or former seagrass beds—where pioneers like Avicennia and Sonneratia should establish first—leads to mass mortality (Primavera, 2012 Manual).
• Short-lived “success.” Monitoring at 3–6 months shows green photographs, but 12–36-month survival can plunge below 20% without aftercare, fencing, or tenure settlement (Primavera, 2009/2012).
• Administrative-heavy budgets. Early reviews noted rising per-hectare costs, with large shares allocated to management/ overheads, while survival rates remained low (Primavera, 2009).

Key best practice integrity fixes now include: (1) scheduling pay tranches at 12 and 36 months, based on seedling survival; (2) publishing geotagged plot data; (3) adopting community-based mangrove rehabilitation (CBMR) methods; and (4) incorporating tenure and stewardship provisions into contracts to incentivize community protection of seedlings (Primavera et al., 2012; Forest Foundation Philippines manual; APN-GCR syntheses; Camacho et al., 2020).

Watershed link: The same governance problems recur upstream. Where upland tenure and enforcement are weak, erosion swamps mangroves with sediment, doubling the failure risks.

India: CAMPA-funded plantations—species choice, community rights, monitoring

India’s Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) channels money to plant trees when forest land is diverted. In theory, this offsets loss; in practice, audits and analyses have raised serious concerns about survival rates, species choice, monitoring quality, and community rights.

• Audit alarms. A 2024 Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) performance audit revealed very high sapling mortality, attributed to poor maintenance and low-quality planting materials, in multiple states (CAG, 2024).
• Survival and mismanagement. Commentary synthesizing state audits (e.g., Odisha) highlighted low survival rates, fund mismanagement, and the non-maintenance of plantations (Mongabay-India, 2025).
• Community rights and species mix. Critics argue that compensatory sites sometimes ignore local needs and forest rights, or substitute monocultures unsuited to local ecology—undercutting both carbon and livelihood goals (CIFOR-ICRAF on governance; TI 2011/2023 on land governance). 

Key recommendations include: (1) co-designing plantations with Gram Sabhas, (2) publishing plot-level survival audits, (3) paying for survival and density, and (4) linking CAMPA funds to community stewardship contracts. These approaches align with evidence that inclusive governance improves outcomes (CAG, 2024; CIFOR-ICRAF, 2023).

Bangladesh: char land forestry—tenure insecurity and elite capture

Bangladesh’s char lands, river-formed islands on the Jamuna/Padma and Meghna, are dynamic, fertile, and tenurially precarious. Forestry and afforestation schemes here promise erosion control and livelihoods but often collide with shifting land rights and local patronage.

• Tenure and power. Classic social research on char settlements reveals how larger landholders capture benefits while smallholders often lose out, frequently under conditions of violence or coercion (Zaman, 1991). (Zaman, 1991).
• Program realities. Restoration and rehabilitation efforts over decades have shown mixed results; enforcement capacity, land conflicts, and competing claims have blunted gains (various syntheses; see the Bangladesh forest restoration literature). (Rahman & others, summaries; ResearchGate compendium).
• Co-management in the Sundarbans (contrast). Meanwhile, co-management initiatives in the Sundarbans have produced ambivalent but instructive evidence—some studies show improved restoration trajectories under co-management, others stress persistent power imbalances and participation constraints, especially for women (Karim et al., 2024; Siddique et al., 2024; Begum et al., 2021/2023/2024). 

Implication for char forestry: Without clear tenure, transparent benefit-sharing, and inclusive committees with real budget authority, char plantations are vulnerable to encroachment, elite capture, and rapid decline—another green mirage.