Yes, this is a requirement for all AFOLU projects.

According to the SOCIALCARBON Standard, FPIC is mandatory when a project affects recognised formal or customary rights, involves physical displacement, or uses traditional knowledge.
In cases of informal, unauthorised access or ad hoc agreements that do not establish any recognised rights, FPIC is not legally required. However, in line with UN-REDD and ICVCM best practices, FPIC remains a recommended good practice — especially where such access supports livelihoods or food security.

Even in the absence of formal rights, FPIC becomes functionally necessary when:

• Project activities significantly restrict previously tolerated access (e.g., fencing, surveillance, enforcement);

• Informal access is socially recognised and demonstrably essential for subsistence or livelihoods.

In such cases, industry best practice treats this as affecting a de facto customary right, and FPIC should be implemented as a safeguard.

Yes — if there are material impacts. The SOCIALCARBON Standard mandates at least 10% of net revenue or credit value be shared with directly impacted stakeholders. This is defined by actual impact — not legal status.

• If access remains unchanged, and there’s no measurable reduction in well-being, communities may be classified as interested stakeholders, and inclusion in the 10% may be voluntary.

• If access is restricted or made more burdensome, these communities become directly impacted, and benefit-sharing becomes mandatory.

A stakeholder is “directly impacted” if the project causes material change to:

• Property or use rights (formal or customary),

• Livelihoods or food security,

• Access to natural resources, or

• Cultural/spiritual values.

If:

• The project is fully landowner-led,

• There is no community co-management,

• Existing informal access remains unchanged,

Then:

• FPIC remains a recommended best practice, not a requirement;

• Benefit sharing applies only if material impacts occur;

• Voluntary benefits to local communities are encouraged for social licence, even if not required.

SOCIALCARBON does not create new rights, but it requires that de facto impacts be assessed. While informal or unauthorised access may not constitute a legal right, if such access:

• Supports basic needs (e.g., food, income),

• Is longstanding and locally recognised, and

• Is materially affected by the project,

...then the community may qualify as directly impacted, triggering benefit-sharing and robust engagement obligations

The project would only be permitted to claim carbon credits from the area of land which exceeds the mandatory activities / area / regulatory frameworks (e.g. 90 ha of project area restored).

Under this scenario the project must demonstrate that the native vegetation cover is unlikely to naturally regenerate without the project’s intervention, or will naturally regenerate at a slower rate when compared to the expected results of the project. In addition, the project must evidence that at least 50% of the project activities cannot be financed without carbon funding.

Only belowground biomass of grasslands can be considered. This carbon pool offers long term permanence of sequestered carbon. Aboveground biomass on the other hand is vulnerable to herbivore consumption and fires, and therefore cannot be considered a permanent carbon pool.

Grazing may be implemented in the project area, however the project must exclude both the aboveground and belowground biomass of the grassland from the project’s measured carbon pools. Whilst grazing reduces fire risk, grazing exclusion has been shown to significantly increase carbon stored in aboveground biomass, litter mass, belowground biomass and soils. The only exemption to this requirement is if the grazing is limited to once every 5 years or more - under this scenario the belowground biomass of the grassland can be monitored as a carbon pool by the project.

In all scenarios, if livestock grazing is present in the project area, the project proponent must provide evidence that the livestock have not caused any direct negative impact on the project area’s biomes and their carbon stocks. Failure to manage the livestock and the subsequent degradation of the biomes within the project area will result in the project no longer remaining eligible for certification.

(Source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.06.124)

A detailed description of the additionality assessment to be completed by projects can be found in the methodology.

In summary, project activities must exceed the requirements for legal reserves / APPs by Brazilian law and common practice e.g. , including fire management, fencing (provided it does not impact biodiversity movements), biodiversity monitoring, vegetation conservation and monitoring, species enrichment etc. Evidence must be provided to prove that the project activities are additional and meet the requirements of the methodology and SOCIALCARBON Standard.

If you can demonstrate that a fire has resulted in more than 60% of the forest biomass being lost, then the area can be considered a secondary formation.

No, this is not eligible. Doing so raises issues related to additionality and also the gerrymandering of project areas to maximize carbon credit generation.

The project proponent must provide both the property deed "escritura de imóvel" and the property registration "matrícula de imóvel".