Beyond the Sensor: Building Blocks for Equitable Nature Recovery
Remote sensing has been around for almost 150 years, with the earliest forms of remote sensing dating back to the 1800s. The first aerial photographs were taken in 1858 by Gaspard-Félix Tournachon, also known as Nadar, using a hot air balloon.
Remote sensing is important because it provides a way to collect data from areas that are dangerous or inaccessible, and it can be used to monitor change over time. It contributes to scientific knowledge by providing valuable information about the Earth’s surface. This includes data on location, depth, biomass, temperature, moisture content, and more. Researchers are using this information to understand various environmental processes better.
The term “remote sensing” was first used in the 1960s. Today, remote sensing platforms include satellites, airplanes, drones, and robots. In this blog, Eric Mensah Kumeh explains why we need to look beyond sensors.
Digital technologies, including remote sensing, now offer exciting opportunities to frame, implement and monitor nature recovery projects at scale. From identifying priority areas to benchmarking vegetation and monitoring change, remote sensing plays an integral role in the design and delivery of numerous nature recovery projects worldwide. Yet, preliminary findings from our equitable nature recovery project in the mosaic landscapes of Ghana emphasize the need to approach these technologies with caution and to look beyond the sensor if nature recovery is to be equitable for both nature and people in project areas.
Drawing on high-resolution multi-spectral imagery of local communities situated at various distances from forest reserves in rural Ghana – where both government and private entities are implementing nature recovery projects – we conducted participatory mapping with local actors to understand their experiences with their land use systems. Our initial findings have been insightful, highlighting at least three key issues.
First, many carbon standards require nature recovery projects to last at least 40 years to meet permanence requirements. However, our participatory mapping shows that land tenure for nearly all land users – including cocoa farmers, vegetable producers, and plantain farmers – is often short-term and tied to the lifespan of the specific crops. These durations vary widely, ranging from six months to 25 years, from vegetable crops to tree crops like cocoa. The mismatch between the requirements of these standards and prevailing land tenure raises questions about who can participate in carbon-oriented nature recovery projects, such as agroforestry, and whether they will have sufficient incentives to stay engaged over time.
The second, related issue is the diversity of crops and land use. Many carbon-based projects are commodity-oriented. Across our study landscapes, cocoa is the main commodity around which carbon projects have been organized even when food crop and cocoa farming are often intermingled spatially. This raises concerns about who is involved in these projects, who is excluded, and on what terms. An alternative approach would involve tailoring carbon projects to pre-existing local land uses, rather than using a one-size-fits-all model that rewards only select groups of actors – even though contributions from all land users are necessary to prevent leakages and ensure additionality.
The third observation relates to local farmers’ existing innovations for meeting their needs while maintaining carbon sinks. In some communities adjacent to or within forest reserves, our participatory mapping revealed complex land use strategies where farmers successfully cultivate food crops, such as bananas, beneath the forest canopy without clearing standing forests. Although such land-sharing practices may technically be considered illegal due to their occurrence in forest reserves, this contrasts sharply with the growing conversion of forest reserves into single-species teak plantations under the rubrics of restoration and carbon. For whom and for what purpose land and nature recovery are implemented become important equity questions in such contexts.
Other interesting findings from the participatory mapping include collective action, where local communities use communal lands for food crops or cocoa farms to raise resources for local development projects, motivated by a perceived neglect in national development agendas and projects.
In summary, these insights underscore the importance of going beyond the sensor to better understand land uses, land users, and their priorities and systems when planning or implementing nature recovery interventions. Sensors provide valuable aerial perspectives on land use; however, a deeper, more engaged interaction with local communities is essential to appreciate their views and ensure equitable outcomes in nature recovery.
In the coming months, our team aims to delve further into the data, leveraging these insights to improve multilevel governance and financing structures, making nature recovery work more equitably for local communities.
