"Verra failed to take any action against the six auditing firms that carried out audits of the Kasigau REDD project."
The auditors, usually with technical and academic background in the forestry, are in no position to audit cultural and social aspects and investigage criminal behaviour of individulas. The auditors are not qualified nor trained for that (just think about data and individuals protection). Including such aspects in the regular audit, as specified by § 3.19.11 of VSC Standard (The project proponent shall ensure that no discrimination or sexual harassment occurs in the project design or implementation) requires involvement of additional specialised auditors. In case a sexual harassment would be reported an auditor would have to immediately pause the audit, inform auditing company, VERRA and police (leaving the project country, before reporting to police (advice from auditor trainings)).
Thanks for this comment Gregor. At least one auditor had heard "disturbing stories" about sexual harassment and abuses at the Kasigau project. SOMO's report (https://www.somo.nl/offsetting-human-rights/) states on page 27:
In 2023, as part of wider research on carbon offsetting, SOMO interviewed several
social and environmental auditors who admitted that the structural incentives built
into the auditing system for carbon offsetting limits auditors’ ability to seriously
investigate human rights concerns at offsetting projects. One of these auditors had
assessed the Kasigau project. They told SOMO they had heard disturbing stories of
sexual harassment and abuses during their conversations with staff. 128 This auditor,
who spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear of retaliation, recalled being told
about an incident where a woman employed by Wildlife Works had asked for an
advance on her salary and was told that “she had to ‘earn it’ by providing sexual
favours”. In another incident, a woman had allegedly been “pressured repeatedly
to sleep with a more senior colleague”. The auditor said they had tried, but failed,
to get interviewees to speak about these and other problems on the record, but that
staff members
“and especially junior staff seemed unable to speak freely. I had the
impression that they had been told what to tell us and were afraid
to defy these instructions. While I tried to convince them that they
could share problems with me, I left those interviews feeling they
were afraid to open up.”
Another reason why this auditor believed their team had failed to capture the
problems at Kasigau was that “local communities who benefit from project carbon
revenues are less likely to share such issues, as doing so may risk the continuation
of project benefits”.
The testimony of this auditor, who spoke to us because of deep concern about the
situation, illustrates how the commercial and power dynamics within the offsetting
industry “limit the level of investigation” auditors can apply.
It is complicated and easy. Complicated is how to audit cultural and social aspects and easy in case serious abuse of position (sexual harassment) are reported. An auditor who would not react to the reported abuse may and shall face (criminal) investigation. At the same time the benefit from the project in form of VERs (credits) are related to protection of the forest and the amount of credits are not affected. What is affected is the image of the project and project management, which in case of publication of such investigated abuse may/will result in painful financial loses (also to participating communities). I think a rating of safeguards defined in VCS Standard shall be the way to deal with.
"Verra failed to take any action against the six auditing firms that carried out audits of the Kasigau REDD project."
The auditors, usually with technical and academic background in the forestry, are in no position to audit cultural and social aspects and investigage criminal behaviour of individulas. The auditors are not qualified nor trained for that (just think about data and individuals protection). Including such aspects in the regular audit, as specified by § 3.19.11 of VSC Standard (The project proponent shall ensure that no discrimination or sexual harassment occurs in the project design or implementation) requires involvement of additional specialised auditors. In case a sexual harassment would be reported an auditor would have to immediately pause the audit, inform auditing company, VERRA and police (leaving the project country, before reporting to police (advice from auditor trainings)).
GJK
Thanks for this comment Gregor. At least one auditor had heard "disturbing stories" about sexual harassment and abuses at the Kasigau project. SOMO's report (https://www.somo.nl/offsetting-human-rights/) states on page 27:
In 2023, as part of wider research on carbon offsetting, SOMO interviewed several
social and environmental auditors who admitted that the structural incentives built
into the auditing system for carbon offsetting limits auditors’ ability to seriously
investigate human rights concerns at offsetting projects. One of these auditors had
assessed the Kasigau project. They told SOMO they had heard disturbing stories of
sexual harassment and abuses during their conversations with staff. 128 This auditor,
who spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear of retaliation, recalled being told
about an incident where a woman employed by Wildlife Works had asked for an
advance on her salary and was told that “she had to ‘earn it’ by providing sexual
favours”. In another incident, a woman had allegedly been “pressured repeatedly
to sleep with a more senior colleague”. The auditor said they had tried, but failed,
to get interviewees to speak about these and other problems on the record, but that
staff members
“and especially junior staff seemed unable to speak freely. I had the
impression that they had been told what to tell us and were afraid
to defy these instructions. While I tried to convince them that they
could share problems with me, I left those interviews feeling they
were afraid to open up.”
Another reason why this auditor believed their team had failed to capture the
problems at Kasigau was that “local communities who benefit from project carbon
revenues are less likely to share such issues, as doing so may risk the continuation
of project benefits”.
The testimony of this auditor, who spoke to us because of deep concern about the
situation, illustrates how the commercial and power dynamics within the offsetting
industry “limit the level of investigation” auditors can apply.
It is complicated and easy. Complicated is how to audit cultural and social aspects and easy in case serious abuse of position (sexual harassment) are reported. An auditor who would not react to the reported abuse may and shall face (criminal) investigation. At the same time the benefit from the project in form of VERs (credits) are related to protection of the forest and the amount of credits are not affected. What is affected is the image of the project and project management, which in case of publication of such investigated abuse may/will result in painful financial loses (also to participating communities). I think a rating of safeguards defined in VCS Standard shall be the way to deal with.
Although in a perfect world it should not be necessary, perhaps articles on harassment should be basic boiler-plate in carbon contracts.