In 2020, when I received my master’s degree in climate change from Vietnam National University in Hanoi, I had already been working in the environmental sector on and off for over 10 years. My experiences in health, tourism and education during those years were valuable for many reasons, including that they crystallized for me that environmental protection ─ and more specifically, pollution reduction ─ was really what fueled my passion. So I was very excited to join the USAID Reducing Pollution activity that began in 2021. The five-year project implemented by Winrock fosters locally-driven initiatives and facilitates capacity for local actors and networks to address environmental pollution challenges such as waste management, plastic and air pollution, and wastewater, using a collective impact approach.

“Collective impact” sounded so familiar to me and yet also curious. We are all familiar with slogans like “joining hands for environmental protection” or “fighting climate change together,” however, even after my advanced studies, I was not aware of the existence of formal principles and approaches behind those common slogans until recently. So I did some research, and learned that “collective impact” was first articulated in 2011 in a Stanford Social Innovation Review article from Harvard University’s Kennedy School, and was defined as “a structured approach that brings together a group of actors from across society to solve a complex problem that one actor cannot address on their own.” Simply put, collective impact is action to bring together disconnected efforts to work towards a common goal.

I recalled the Concept Note for USAID’s Local Works for Environmental Health activity, to which I wrote a response two years ago, before learning about the collective impact approach. In that note, “collective actions,” “collective activities,” and “collective network of local actors” were mentioned many times, but I didn’t fully understand the approach behind these words. I realized that nongovernmental organizations and others working in Vietnam may have designed project activities or planned projects around collective impact, without realizing that it is a formal approach to engaging stakeholders from the central to local level, from the government to the private sector and across communities. This may explain the reality that despite the remarkable successes in creating alliances among multiple stakeholders in Vietnam, obstacles still remain when striving for sustainability after donor-funded programs close.

Knowing and understanding the formal collective impact approach is very beneficial for organizations and programs in Vietnam in general and for initiatives on reducing pollution in particular. Specifically, the five key factors of the collective impact approach which our USAID Reducing Pollution activity will be working on over the next five years, together with our partners and grantees, are: 1) developing a common agenda; 2) using a shared measurement system; 3) mutually reinforcing activities; 4) maintaining continuous communication; and 5) paying attention to backbone support for creating long-term collective impact.

With the aim to bring about measurable impacts of pollution reduction, the Reducing Pollution activity is currently analyzing environmental challenges in Vietnam to identify the sectors in which our project can facilitate the greatest collective impact. To start, we know that each collective impact initiative will be led by a local organization, which will serve as the “backbone organization,” to lead a series of connected activities to address a key pollution issue while developing a network of motivated stakeholders from communities, local government, and the private sector. These stakeholders will work together to identify solutions to the pollution challenge.

Reducing pollution itself is a long journey which necessitates continued and sustained actions, which are impossible to achieve through individual efforts only. So, my friends! JOIN WITH US whether you understand our collective impact approaches or not, and whether you have taken pollution-reduction activities before, or not. We need you to join us to go farther, together, in Vietnam’s Reducing Pollution journey.

Acting Together, Reducing Pollution!

Phan Thi Nhung, collective impact officer with the USAID Reducing Pollution activity in Vietnam, has worked as a deputy project manager with the Asian Management and Development Institute, a project coordinator with the Vietnam Industrial Pollution Management Project, and an international cooperation officer with the Centre for Environmental Monitoring in the Vietnam Environment Administration.

ACR is launching a blog series to explore and explain carbon markets and how ACR tackles various issues in our ongoing mission to set the bar for carbon credit quality. Our first post is on additionality and baselines for Improved Forest Management (IFM) projects.

Demand for voluntary carbon credits has doubled in recent years and is expected to grow as much as 10 times by 2030 and 30 times by 2050. Much of this demand is driven by a growing number of carbon neutral and net zero commitments from companies seeking to decarbonize their supply chains and offset unavoidable emissions with high quality carbon credits.

ACR credits for emission reduction and removals in a variety of sectors and for a number of different activities that are all critical to meeting Paris Agreement goals. In the industrial sector, ACR credits for methane reduction from landfills, coal mines and (coming soon) abandoned and orphaned oil and gas wells. In the forestry sector, ACR credits for afforestation / reforestation, avoided conversion of U.S. forests (coming soon), and for IFM.  

ACR IFM Additionality and Baselines

Some of the questions we get asked most are about “additionality” and baseline setting for IFM. How do we ensure that project actions or policies exceed those that would have occurred in the absence of the project activity and without carbon market incentives? How do we ensure a credible baseline scenario from which to measure performance?  

We thought these would be good topics to kick the series off with to explain ACR’s approach and how our IFM methodology addresses common questions around assessing additionality and establishing a crediting baseline.

IFM Background

In the U.S., the number of IFM projects in development is growing because standards bodies like ACR have published methodologies that are applicable to a variety of landowner types, including private industrial, private non-industrial, tribal, public non-federal, and non-governmental organizations. By attaching a monetary value to carbon sequestration, the carbon market presents an opportunity for different types of landowners to achieve a higher standard of forest management, while still supplementing their revenue goals and helping to combat climate change.  

It is important to note that enrollment in an ACR IFM project initiates an immediately effective, legally binding, and public-facing 40-year commitment to grow trees older and larger, and/or to harvest less frequently or intensely. The projects quantify and credit carbon stored on the landscape as a result of this new long-term management commitment. IFM offers a cost-effective and scalable opportunity to sequester carbon now, as we pursue a transition to a carbon neutral economy by mid-century. 

Additionality

Key to ensuring the credibility of carbon offsets is the concept of additionality. This assumption is a central tenet of all carbon offset programs and projects, not just IFM. It is important because there needs to be a high level of confidence that project actions or policies exceed those that would have occurred in the absence of the project activity and without carbon market incentives.

The ACR IFM methodology contains specific requirements for project proponents to demonstrate additionality. As a first step, all ACR IFM projects must be verified to meet a 3-prong additionality test, requiring demonstration that they 1) exceed all currently effective laws and regulations, 2) exceed common practice management of similar forests in the region, and 3) face at least one of three barriers to their implementation (financial, technical, or institutional).  

The regulatory surplus test involves evaluating all existing laws, regulations, statutes, legal rulings, deed restrictions, or other regulatory frameworks relevant to the project area that directly or indirectly affect GHG emissions associated with a project action or its baseline candidates, and which require technical, performance, or management actions. The project action cannot be legally required.

The common practice test requires an evaluation of the predominant forest management practices of the region and a demonstration that the management activities of the project scenario will increase carbon sequestration compared to common practice. This involves evaluating and describing the predominant forest management practices occurring on comparable sites of the region and demonstrating that the project activities will achieve greater carbon sequestration than in the absence of the project.

Finally, the implementation barrier test examines factors or considerations that would prevent the adoption of the practice or activity proposed by the project proponent. IFM projects often demonstrate a financial implementation barrier because carbon projects are generally expensive to implement and coincide with harvest deferral and forgone potential revenues. This results in a low internal rate of return in comparison to the land potential that dissuades many landowners from implementing carbon projects. Technological and institutional barriers associated with carbon projects may also be proposed.

Determining Baselines

Enhancing carbon stocks above a baseline scenario is what allows carbon credits to be generated. Ensuring a reasonable baseline is equally important for ensuring credibility. Under ACR’s IFM methodology, determining the baseline involves a comprehensive assessment of site characteristics and predominant forest management practices in the region to develop an alternate forest management scenario that could reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of the project.  

ACR baselines consider all legal constraints to forest management, as well as operational constraints to forest management such as site access, mill capacities, and hauling distances. Baseline silvicultural treatments must be substantiated by peer-reviewed or state/federal publications, attestations from regional foresters, or other verifiable means to ensure their relevance to the project area. In other words, they need to be substantially vetted and validated by independent sources.

Finally, to address the various management objectives and considerations confronting ownerships of different types, ACR IFM baselines employ a Faustmann approach to net present value (NPV) maximization, which considers prices, costs, and the time value of money in determining harvest schedules. Faustmann’s original 1849 work forms the basis for modern optimal rotation/investment decisions and forest economics. NPV discount rates based on peer-reviewed literature govern the intensity and temporal distribution of baseline harvests, considering the specific characteristics and motivations of each ownership type.

The ACR approach is a consistent, replicable, and verifiable metric upon which to assess management decisions across the major U.S. forestland ownership types. It also provides a transparent and systematic metric by which landowners, project developers, verifiers, and offset purchasers can base their assessment of an ACR IFM carbon project.  

As a leading carbon offset standards body, ACR takes pride in ensuring our projects generate carbon credits that are additional to business-as-usual and generate meaningful climate benefits, both in the near and long-term. 

We also recognize the complexities of this space and provide responses to commonly asked questions below:

Why Not Use Historic Baselines?

We do not use historical activity because, absent legal constraints, it does not necessarily represent the future management trajectory. Setting a IFM baseline solely according to recent harvest trends ignores the fact that in the absence of an abrupt paradigm shift, silviculture and forest management occurs and evolves over longer timeframes. Forest management is long-term and cyclical, and evolves based on financial needs, market conditions, agency priorities, and other factors. The future harvest scenario of any given forest is fundamentally unknown and management objectives change over time. Land can be sold and harvested. In the absence of a long-term, legally binding commitment, plans for how lands are managed can, and invariably do, change. While ACR requires that all legal constraints be modelled in the baseline, forest management plans are not legally binding and can be modified at any time.

Shouldn’t Project Proponents Justify the Baseline?

Yes. In addition to the requirement for ACR IFM projects to verifiably demonstrate that they exceed all currently effective laws and regulations, exceed common practice management of similar forests in the region, and face at least one of three implementation barriers, project proponents must also develop a baseline through a comprehensive assessment of site characteristics and predominant forest management practices relevant to the project area. ACR baselines consider all legal constraints to forest management, as well as operational constraints to forest management, such as site access, mill capacities, and hauling distances. Project proponents must describe the baseline harvest regime and justify the harvest regime/silvicultural practices with peer-reviewed studies or other reputable reports to demonstrate that what they propose is a realistic alternate management scenario. ACR requires the details of these analyses to be included in the GHG Project Plan. All baseline assumptions are verified.

Isn’t it possible that the forests in question would be managed the same way with or without carbon crediting?

Enrollment in an ACR IFM project represents an immediate change from previous practice because it initiates an immediately effective, legally binding, and public facing commitment to increase carbon stocks in the project area for four decades. It is a tangible, firm, and immediate action to increase and directly quantify carbon sequestration according to a known and transparent framework.

It is not common for a landowner with mature timber to make a long-term commitment (40 years in this case) to light harvesting and to legally forgo the opportunity to do so. As mentioned above, forest management is long-term and cyclical based on financial needs, market conditions, agency priorities, mill conditions, and other factors. Carbon projects typically provide a minimal cost recovery in comparison to the foregone revenues and opportunity cost associated with harvest deferral and managing for carbon sequestration. Carbon projects provide legal certainty, which was absent before, that the project area will increase its carbon stocks over time and that the property will be managed to a standard that far exceeds that previously allowable.

Does the project take the most aggressive harvest scenario off the table?

Yes, although carbon projects do much more than just take the most aggressive scenario off the table. Projects enrolling with ACR must maintain or increase their forest carbon stocks over the 40-year project commitment term (i.e., they cannot harvest more than annual growth). Doing so would be a reversal and they’d have to compensate ACR for the reversed credits. It is not common practice for a landowner with mature timber to enroll in a long-term, legally binding agreement that limits their capacity to harvest over time. 

What about different kinds of landowners?

In the early days, the primary participants in IFM projects were large timberland owners. Over time, the market has expanded to include many different types of landowners. Evolving financial needs, market conditions, management priorities, and other factors are applicable to all kinds of landowners. Therefore, our rigorous criteria for additionality and determining baselines apply to all project proponents, who must justify why the baseline is a realistic management trajectory. Organizations that may have longer-term, institutional climate targets should also factor these into their decisions to enroll IFM projects and their justification of baseline scenarios.

How does ACR improve its methodologies over time?

All ACR methodologies must undergo a rigorous approval process that involves internal review, public consultation, and blind scientific peer review. ACR is the only registry to require scientific peer-review for the approval of its methodologies.

We are continually updating and improving our methodologies over time. The ACR IFM methodology, for example, was first approved in 2011 and is undergoing its fourth version update. The new IFM version 2.0 provides clarifications and updates to continuously strengthen the methodology, and reflects our deep knowledge base gained from implementing IFM projects for over a decade.  

ACR’s IFM methodology version 2.0 is currently in peer review and is expected to be published in the summer of 2022.

The implications of not providing women with equal voices, choices and opportunities affect not just their lives, but the future of the planet. Efforts to promote inclusive sustainable development and fight climate change are inextricably linked. At Winrock, we understand the urgency in engaging with women in the pressing threat that climate change poses, today, and recognize we cannot leave this problem for future generations to address. Left unchecked, climate change – along with unsustainable patterns of development – could wipe out the gains of recent decades.

Winrock is excited to celebrate this year’s theme for International Women’s Day: “Gender equality today for a sustainable tomorrow,” recognizing the contribution of women and girls around the world who are leading the charge on climate change adaptation, mitigation and response to build a more sustainable future for all. At Winrock, we see firsthand across our programming that women and men experience climate change differently, as gender inequalities persist around the world affecting the ability of individuals and communities to adapt.

We recognize that women are among those most vulnerable to the impacts of unsustainable practices and climate change, because they often have no independent income or land rights. In many countries, women are entirely responsible for the provision of water and food for their families. And when the usual sources of these resources are disrupted, women are forced to travel farther and spend more time working for less return. Women are in fact at the heart of the household’s nexus of water, food and energy across the world – and thus often know firsthand about the challenges and potential solutions in these areas.

We also recognize the important contributions of women as decision-makers, stakeholders, educators, caregivers and experts across sectors, and that their commitment, energy, and capability across all levels will lead us to successful, long-term solutions to climate change. We support efforts in our programs that promote sustainable development in natural resource management and climate change adaptation by leveraging women’s innovations and expertise that has the potential to transform lives and livelihoods. We have learned this firsthand from our experience on projects from Senegal to the Solomon Islands, from Nepal to Tajikistan, as well as in dozens of other countries where Winrock works.

In Senegal, for example, women and men have sharply defined roles in artisanal fishing communities. Winrock’s own evidence, gleaned from collaborative learning and adaptation on the USAID Feed the Future Senegal Dekkal Geej activity, demonstrates that coastal resource conservation efforts that involve women often help improve their position within the community, leading to better representation of their interests and more decision-making power over their own livelihoods. As a result of Dekkal Geej’s interventions and focus on gender equality, the project has successfully equipped a group of nearly 50 women processors to design and access financing to strengthen climate resilience and protect livelihoods through climate adaptation activities to counter negative effects of climate change on fisheries-based livelihoods and food security. These women are gaining huge ground in improving the coastal erosion that has devastated fish landing sites. Their work has had transformative positive impacts on livelihoods.

In the Solomon Islands, women are often prevented from participating in decision-making and policy development; they are also provided only limited access to land and natural resources. With women’s voices largely absent in governance structures, Winrock is helping to develop innovative strategies that increase engagement of diverse groups of women through stakeholder consultations and dialogues about critical natural resource management issues. In different parts of the Solomon Islands, women represent a huge opportunity to raise awareness about activities that are damaging the rich marine environment. As Ruby Awa, Gender Equity and Social Inclusion Specialist with the Strengthening Competitiveness, Agriculture, Livelihoods and Environment – Natural Resource Management project says: “Addressing women’s empowerment and advancing gender equality can lead to more environmentally friendly decision-making both at the household and national levels – and addresses various levels of power that can reflect more inclusive participation.”

Climate change represents the most complex challenge of our time – and it requires a concerted, proactive and holistic response. Winrock is committed to investing in participatory, multi-stakeholder dialogues that integrate gender concerns and build on women’s unique knowledge and perspectives. We support equal space and resources for women and men to participate in climate change decision-making and action at all levels. And we work hard to ensure that climate finance should be accessible to both men and women and designed to generate mutual benefits, not exacerbate patterns of inequity.

More inclusive engagement of women in the fight against climate change means a better, more inclusive future for all. Across the world, Winrock staff are thinking about how to be more intentional in our design and delivery of this promise. Because we believe that women’s voices should be heard loudly. It’s time to seize this opportunity for a just and equitable future for all.

The progress ART achieved in 2021 with collaborators significantly broadened opportunities to unlock inclusive, large-scale solutions from forests that support achievement of the ambitious climate and sustainable development goals of the Paris Agreement.

We would like to acknowledge the continued leadership from ART’s independent board of directors, who provide ongoing strategic guidance and help to ensure the environmental and social integrity of ART. We would also like to acknowledge our colleagues within forest jurisdictions who are demonstrating remarkable leadership in this space, together with the broad range of other partners and stakeholder organizations who are continuing to help define and implement our collective vision of jurisdictional action to protect and restore tropical forests around the world. We look forward to our continued work together in the year ahead.

Launch of TREES 2.0.

After an 18-month development and approval process, publication of the second version of The REDD+ Environmental Excellence Standard (TREES) was one of the main headlines for ART in 2021. TREES is our standard for measuring, monitoring, reporting, verifying and crediting climate progress in the forest sector.

The Paris Agreement paved the way for large-scale climate solutions from forests by endorsing international cooperation to protect and enhance forest carbon stocks and reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, collectively known as REDD+. A major barrier to mobilizing large-scale finance has been the lack of a high-integrity, standardized approach for the measurement, monitoring, reporting, verifying and crediting of emission reductions and carbon removals from forests at a jurisdictional scale, including the assurance of strong environmental and social safeguards.

ART was created to meet this challenge with the objective of attracting finance at scale to support ambitious climate action in the forest sector by countries and large subnational jurisdictions such as provinces or states. The first version of TREES, released in February 2020, focused on ensuring the integrity of credits for emission reductions from reduced deforestation and forest degradation ─ the most urgent priority for the forest sector.

Published in August 2021, TREES 2.0 expands options for participating jurisdictions to access carbon market finance by including crediting for additional mitigation actions from the forest sector, notably: (i) Protecting forests in jurisdictions with high forest cover and low rates of deforestation; and (ii) Enhancing carbon “removals” from reforestation and forest restoration efforts. It also creates a pathway to recognize the important contributions of Indigenous peoples to protecting forests.

The launch of TREES 2.0 comes amidst a major surge in corporate interest in including forest carbon credits as part of their climate action strategies. TREES 2.0 gives companies the opportunity to pay for high-integrity emission reduction and removals credits from countries and large subnational jurisdictions that are achieving results in protecting and restoring tropical forests. It will also bolster the growing interest from major economies – such as the U.S., U.K. and Norway – to support enhanced climate action in tropical forest countries.

While developing TREES 2.0, the ART team also prepared communications materials that enhanced clarity for how project-level activities can fit within a jurisdictional approach, as well as how TREES operationalizes the social and environmental safeguards defined by the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC) for the implementation of REDD+ activities – known commonly as the Cancún Safeguards.

Growing number of participating jurisdictions.

Nine jurisdictions now have approved TREES Concept documents, which are publicly listed on the ART Registry. These include Amapá (Brazil), Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Ghana, Guyana, Maranhão (Brazil), Tocantins (Brazil), and Vietnam.

The approval of a TREES Concept is the first step to register a jurisdictional REDD+ program under ART. Once TREES Registration documents have been submitted and the results independently verified by an accredited verification body, the ART Board may approve the issuance of serialized TREES credits to the participating jurisdiction.

Beyond this, more than 20 other jurisdictions have expressed interest in ART and are at various stages of preparing a TREES Concept document. We look forward to this list continuing to expand in the year ahead along with progress through the ART registration cycle of those jurisdictions already listed.

Launch of LEAF coalition grows demand for ART-issued TREES credits.

2021 also saw the launch of the LEAF (Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest finance) Coalition, one of the largest-ever public-private efforts to protect tropical forests. LEAF has already mobilized $1 billion for the purchase of ART-issued TREES emission reduction and removals credits from forest country governments committed to increasing ambition to protect forests and reduce deforestation. The LEAF Coalition is coordinated by the U.S. non-profit Emergent, which aims to catalyze new capital flows into tropical forest protection by streamlining access to a wide range of REDD+ buyers of TREES Credits. Through LEAF, the total demand for ART-issued verified emission reductions is estimated to potentially reach at least several billion dollars in the period ahead.

At the U.N. Climate Change Conference (COP26) held late last year in Glasgow, LEAF signed the first Letters of Intent (LOIs) for transactions of ART-certified TREES Credits with Costa Rica, Ecuador, Ghana, Nepal and Vietnam. To date, 23 jurisdictions have submitted eligible proposals in response to the LEAF Call for Proposals. These jurisdictions collectively have the potential to protect up to half-a-billion hectares of forest, greater than the area of the European Union, and their estimated self-reported emissions reductions amount to several times LEAF’s initial goal of 100 million tonnes of emissions reductions. The Call for Proposals was designed to help catalyze significant reductions of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through a combination of forward purchase agreements and floor price commitments at $10 per tonne for at least 100 million metric tonnes of CO₂.

ICAO extends eligibility of ART-issued TREES credits.

Last year ART was approved by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to supply TREES jurisdictional forest carbon emission reductions credits to airlines for their compliance under the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA). This decision marked an exciting milestone, making the CORSIA the first international regulated carbon market to recognize national and subnational approaches to reducing forest lost as allowable ways to achieve global climate change mitigation objectives. 

In November 2021, following this landmark decision, the ICAO Council extended the eligibility of ART-issued TREES Credits for compliance under the CORSIA. Initially approved to supply units generated between 2016 and 2020, the recent ICAO decision expands eligibility to include ART-issued units generated during the period 2021 to 2023.

This marks ICAO’s first approval of a jurisdictional REDD+ crediting program to offer post-2020 vintage credits for airlines to meet their targets in the first CORSIA compliance cycle. To date, ICAO has approved only eight carbon crediting programs globally to supply offset credits for the CORSIA, which is expected to reduce or offset between 2.5 and 4 billion tons of CO₂-equivalent through 2035.

ICAO’s updated approval of ART-issued credits was based on recent updates to our program requirements, as aligned with the recently finalized Article 6 rulebook, to ensure avoidance of double counting of credits used for CORSIA with mitigation targets under the Paris Agreement. In the context of climate change mitigation, double counting describes situations where a single greenhouse gas emission reduction or removal is used more than once to demonstrate compliance with mitigation targets.

This approval gives airlines the ability to demonstrate climate leadership by purchasing credits that are aligned with the Paris Agreement, as well as with the San José Principles. We look forward to working with first-mover forest countries and airlines to put these procedures into practice to ensure environmental integrity and transparency.

2022: The year ahead.

In the year ahead, the ART team will be shifting into an operational mode, working directly with jurisdictions on moving through the ART registration process towards the issuance of the first TREES Credits. Early in the year, we will launch a new website, together with a suite of other communications products, as part of our ongoing effort to make the relevant resources, information and guidance as accessible as possible to our broad range of stakeholders.

My colleague Tonitrice Wicks and I recently participated in the first Concordia Live event of 2022. Concordia’s monthly live webinars spark global conversations and highlight innovative partnerships across the Concordia community. The topic for this first webinar of the year was chosen intentionally because it lasers in on one of the root causes of the deep social inequities in the U.S. – one that suppresses economic growth and prosperity, and limits opportunity in historically disenfranchised communities.  

Our webinar focused on financial inclusion, which is glaringly absent in many places in the U.S., especially in rural communities across the South and Southeast. Financing is available in those areas, but it can be exclusive and difficult to obtain, especially if your enterprise is small, and more so if you are a woman or a person of color.  

We’re working to change that. 

Tonitrice and I joined a small panel of experts, including Robert Meloche, head of programs at Visa Foundation, and Caroline Yarborough, syndications and strategy officer at Calvert Impact Capital, with whom we’re working on an innovative new program to help underbanked businesses not only bounce back from COVID, but lay the foundation for inclusive, long-term growth.  

Calvert Impact Capital’s Southern Opportunity and Resilience (SOAR) Fund was created in early 2021 by local and national lenders to provide economic recovery loans to small businesses in 15 states across the South and Southeast. Since then, the Fund has drawn inquiries from hundreds of small business owners, many of whom desperately need affordable financing. Funded by the Visa Foundation, Winrock’s SOAR Technical Assistance Project is designed to help businesses in a sub-set of those states develop and submit strong loan applications, and offers continued, post-loan support so their enterprises can thrive, grow, and contribute to economic development in the places that need it most.  

The technical assistance helps small business owners navigate the process of qualifying, applying for, and complying with loan requirements, even if they’ve been turned down, elsewhere. Applicants can access workshops and training, credit counseling, business plan development, accounting and financing coaching, and other support, including mentoring from other business owners. 

“It’s reaching exactly who it was set out to serve,” Caroline said. 

Tonitrice is a senior program officer with Winrock’s U.S. Programs team. She’s also an expert at managing entrepreneurial education programs and grants, and oversees the Visa Foundation-funded SOAR Technical Assistance Project. A big part of her job involves building relationships with supporting organizations in the seven states targeted by the project: Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and West Virginia. She shared insights about loan access and support, including something that resonated deeply with me. 

In disenfranchised communities in the South, she said, trust is hard-won, in part because traditional bank loans and other financing often aren’t obtainable there, but also because those in charge of financial resources aren’t visible. To address that, Winrock works with well-known local partners who live in and understand their communities and can provide entrepreneurial services to prospective loan recipients.  

“We’re supporting businesses through those fears, and we’re here … connecting them to other successful businesses that have received funds” for networking, advice and encouragement, Tonitrice said. 

Robert, who has worked on inclusive financing for two decades, reminded us that socioeconomic inequities existed long before COVID struck. But those disparities have since deepened dramatically. 

“The challenges, these gaps for women borrowers, for borrowers of color, have gotten worse,” he said, adding that “one of the reasons that these borrowers have been shut out of the financial system is because of some of the structures around things like credit score that we’ve become over-reliant on as a proxy for people’s ability and willingness to repay. And if you’ve been shut out of the credit system historically, there’s really no way in.”  

SOAR is helping to open those doors.  

Loans of up to $100,000, each, already have gone to florists, family-owned restaurants, and other small businesses, including Main Street shop owners in small towns and rural communities. Many of them likely closed at least temporarily due to COVID. Ninety percent of the loans issued so far have gone to businesses with 10 or fewer employees and those with under $1 million in annual revenues; and 80% have gone to women-owned and BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color) recipients, Caroline said.  

How can you get involved, and help bridge the socio-economic divide?  

Robert urged us all to learn about and support Community Development Financial Institutions, including credit unions, which offer banking services while supporting underserved communities. Tonitrice emphasized the need for all companies to look harder, both internally and externally, at issues affecting diversity, equity and inclusion; we all need to be agents of the change we want to see. 

Winrock welcomes new donors to fund technical assistance for SOAR applicants, and we’re always looking for private and public partners that support our mission of empowering the disadvantaged, increasing economic opportunity and sustaining natural resources in the U.S. and around the world. We know that opportunity and resilience are powerful antidotes to inequality.  

With committed, visionary collaborators like Visa Foundation, Calvert Impact Capital and other organizations Winrock is connecting with through Concordia, who knows how far we can go? 

This blog was originally posted on Concordia.net.