The Need to Look Under the Canopy

Having worked in sustainable development for several years, I have seen the need for verifiable data to measure impact. But I’ve often wondered about the extent to which unique local dynamics are truly captured in this process.

I recently went on a trip to Tanzania and Kenya. Whilst there, I made a point of visiting several climate projects. My intention was to see what climate projects look like on the ground and learn more about how local people engage with these projects.

Over the course of a week, I visited several conservation projects, undertook a few site visits, and spoke at length with locals in project areas. At the end of my expedition, I was able to reflect. I realised that to some extent, my hunch was right: there can be a disconnect between project data and realities on the ground.

But, and here’s the kicker: there were limitations to my thinking.

After my trip, I connected with Xilva. The conversation distilled some of my thinking. The key takeaways helped me make sense of the complexities that I had experienced on the ground. I believe these points are critical to the successful implementation of nature-based solutions. They are shared below.

Investments in nature

The global climate response needs more funding for nature-based solutions. Financing for implementation remains grossly inadequate. To bridge this gap, we need investments at scale.

There is good news though. Funders are waking up to the necessity to invest in nature. They are also waking up to the opportunities and benefits that these projects present. But necessity does not detract from the need for trust in nature-based solutions. Investors still require verifiable evidence of project impact, rigour, and best practice.

Technology is playing a major role in aiding this process. It is streamlining the collection and analysis of data and allowing for more efficient and transparent due diligence. However, we cannot rely solely on technology from a distance. At some point, there is a need to engage with local communities and tap into local perspectives about projects.

The sum of moving parts

Here we get to the crux of the matter: knowing when to connect with local stakeholders and to what extent is just as critical as any other audit or assessment process. Too much upfront can be an unmanageable cost burden on a project (at a time when funding has not been identified). However, insufficient engagement could alienate communities and/or overlook key risks. This is a delicate balancing act. It is also a process that will look different for every project. A one-size fits all approach simply won’t cut it.

There is another layer of complexity: whilst the use of technology, standards and quality assurance can identify high-quality projects, there is a need to ensure that these processes don’t eliminate projects that have potential. When it comes to investments in climate projects, there must be space for projects to start on the journey. Capacity building and funding can help some projects get through the early stages.

This is important because as I pointed out earlier, the global climate response needs impact at scale.

Putting the pieces together

Climate projects are the sum of moving parts. I am still dazed by the complexities on the ground and what project managers face to get their work done. However, I am also optimistic that the right tools and initiatives are coming into nature-based solutions.

I also think that as more people and companies share experiences, it will become easier to ‘get under the canopy.’ With greater understanding, we can implement what’s needed to make projects people-centric.

After all, it’s social licence that will determine whether a project succeeds or fails.