CCB Program Community Indicators and Criteria

The “Community” section of the Climate Standards, Community and Biodiversity presents a series of criteria, that revolve around the requirement that certified projects respect the rights of local communities and work collaboratively with them to promote sustainable land use practices.

CM1. SCENARIO OF COMMUNITIES IN THE ABSENCE OF PROJECT

The CM1 criterion “Scenario of Communities in the Absence of a Project” refers to the potential impact the project could have on a local community. The concept behind the CM1 criterion is that certified projects must assess the possible impacts they would have on local communities if they were not implemented.. In other words, the CM1 criterion seeks to ensure that projects not only minimize negative impacts on local communities, but also contribute to improving their situation compared to the scenario in which the project would not exist.

To meet this criterion, the document presents a series of indicators that must be evaluated, such as:

1. Description of the reference scenario: a detailed description of the scenario of local communities in the absence of the project must be presented, taking into account factors such as social conditions, economic and environmental.
2. Assess whether the project zone includes any of the following high conservation value attributes (High Conservation Values – HCV) related to the well-being of communities and describe the qualifying attributes of any identified HCVs.
3. Describe expected changes in welfare conditions and other characteristics of communities in the land use scenario in the absence of the project.

CM2. POSITIVE NET IMPACTS FOR COMMUNITIES

The concept behind the CM2 criterion is that certified projects must have a net positive impact on local communities., which means that, after project implementation, local communities must be better off than before implementation.

The criterion presents four indicators, being them:

1. Use appropriate methodologies to estimate impacts, including benefits, anticipated and actual costs and risks, direct and indirect benefits for each of the identified community groups resulting from project activities in the with-project scenario. Estimation of impacts should include changes in well-being due to project activities and an assessment of impacts by affected community groups.
2. Describe the necessary measures taken to mitigate any negative impacts on the well-being of community groups for the maintenance or improvement of high conservation value attributes consistent with the precautionary principle.
3. Demonstrate that the net welfare impacts of the project are positive for all community groups compared to expected welfare conditions under the no-project land use scenario.
4. Demonstrate that no high conservation value attributes are negatively affected by the project.

CM3. IMPACTS ON OTHER ACTORS

In the third criterion in relation to the Community, it is intended that project activities at least “do not harm” the well-being of other actors.

Displays only three indicators:

1. Identify any potential positive and negative impacts that project activities may have on the well-being of other stakeholders.
2. Describe the necessary measures taken to mitigate negative welfare impacts on other actors.
3. Demonstrate that project activities do not result in net negative impacts to the well-being of other stakeholders.

CM 4. MONITORING OF IMPACTS ON COMMUNITIES

The core concept of criterion CM4 is that monitoring impacts on communities estimates changes in well-being resulting from project activities for community groups and other stakeholders..

CM4 criteria indicators include:

1. Develop and implement a monitoring plan that identifies the community variables to be monitored, communities, community groups and other actors to be monitored, the types of measurements, sampling methods and frequency of monitoring and reporting.
2. Develop and implement a monitoring plan to estimate the effectiveness of measures taken to maintain or improve all high conservation value attributes related to the well-being of communities.
3. Disclose the monitoring plan and any monitoring results carried out in accordance with the monitoring plan, ensuring that they are publicly available on the internet and that their summaries are communicated to communities and other stakeholders through appropriate means.

When evaluating the monitoring of project impacts on local communities, criterion CM4 seeks to ensure that the project is socially responsible and that measures are taken to minimize its negative impacts and maximize its benefits to local communities.

Therefore, the four criteria related to local communities of the CCB standards are fundamental to ensure that projects are implemented in a socially responsible and sustainable way.

Criterion CM1 emphasizes the importance of assessing the social and economic context of local communities affected by the project, in order to understand how the project could negatively affect these communities. The CM2 criterion aims to ensure that the project generates net positive impacts for the local community., that is, that the benefits of the project outweigh its negative impacts. The CM3 criterion aims to assess whether the project is taking steps to minimize its impacts on other actors, beyond local communities. Finally, Criterion CM4 highlights the importance of ongoing monitoring and evaluation of project impacts on local communities, in order to identify problems and opportunities to improve the project and minimize its negative impacts.

Together, these criteria help ensure that projects are implemented in a responsible and sustainable manner, taking into account the needs and interests of the local community and minimizing negative impacts on these communities and the environment.

GL2. EXCEPTIONAL BENEFITS FOR COMMUNITIES

Considered an optional criterion, the GL2 criterion conceptualizes a project led by smallholders/communities and implemented on land they own or cultivate and/or is explicitly pro-poor in terms of benefits targeted at the world's poorest communities.

This optional criterion recognizes that projects led by smallholders and local communities have the potential to create transformational benefits for the world's poorest communities.. The aim is to encourage projects that support local communities in implementing sustainable practices on their own land and that create significant benefits for these communities..

Examples of pro-poor benefits include the creation of high-quality jobs, the promotion of social inclusion, increased income and food security, strengthening local capacity and improving the health and well-being of local communities.

_{This is biO3 original content. To read other content, access the link to our blog.}