CARBON COLONIALISM IN AFRICA

TAG: GS 3: ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT

THE CONTEXT: ‘Carbon colonialism’ in Africa meets resistance as companies seek to sell carbon credits from conservation projects that often upend local livelihoods—or worse.

EXPLANATION:

• In Africa, particularly in countries like Liberia, Kenya, Tanzania, and Zambia, companies such as Blue Carbon have struck deals with governments to purchase land for conservation purposes.
• These agreements aim to preserve forests, which are crucial for mitigating climate change.
• However, they often lack transparency and fail to involve local communities in decision-making processes, leading to widespread resistance and allegations of human rights abuses.

Carbon colonialism:

• The term “carbon colonialism” refers to the exploitation of carbon offsetting mechanisms in ways that disproportionately affect Indigenous and local communities in Africa.
• It often leads to the upending of livelihoods and exacerbating social and environmental injustices.
• This phenomenon has gained attention in recent years as companies seek to profit from conservation projects by selling carbon credits while disregarding the rights and well-being of affected communities.

Case Studies and Impacts

• Liberia:
  • Indigenous communities like Neezuin in Liberia are facing threats to their land as the government enters agreements with companies like Blue Carbon without consulting them.
  • The lack of legal frameworks regarding carbon credits further exacerbates their vulnerability, leaving them without adequate protections.
• Kenya:
  • Similar issues arise in Kenya, where Indigenous populations have been evicted to make way for carbon credit projects, leading to conflicts and compromising their livelihoods and food security.
  • The lack of consent and transparency in these projects has drawn criticism from rights groups.
• Zimbabwe:
  • Blue Carbon’s presence in Zimbabwe also raises concerns, as the company plans to develop projects covering a significant portion of the country’s land.
  • The opacity surrounding these agreements adds to the uncertainty about their potential impacts on local communities.

Carbon offsetting:

• Carbon offsets work like a game of Monopoly, except instead of money, companies deal in carbon emissions. A company gets “carbon credits” for investment in offset projects, tokens which represent an amount of carbon dioxide which would have been funnelled out of the atmosphere due to these initiatives.
• Each credit is equal to a metric ton of CO2, which would have caused global warming. These credits allow companies to continue emitting carbon in one place (say, aeroplane travel), with the promise their offsets are reducing emissions elsewhere (in distant rainforests).
• The voluntary carbon-offset market is expected to grow from $2 billion in 2020 to around $250 billion by 2050,
• The United Nations in 2008 formalised this idea by setting up the Reducing Emissions From Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+), believing that the incentives from offsetting will help nations achieve climate goals.
• There are also blind spots built into the offset system. The voluntary carbon offset market is self-regulated: there are middlemen in the form of organisations like REDD+ that connect credit buyers and sellers. There are “certification” standards set by companies like Verra which allow companies to create and register their carbon-offsetting projects (the Gold Standard is considered among the most rigorous credit programs).
• Offset programs work only when they remove or reduce carbon emissions that wouldn’t have been eliminated otherwise, what is called “additionality”. Proving additionality is a structural challenge, for it is hard to track the genuine progress of activities on the ground.

Critiques of Carbon Offsetting

• Effectiveness:
  • The effectiveness of carbon offsetting itself is debated, with concerns about the concept of “additionality.”
  • Projects may claim to reduce carbon emissions, but in many cases, these reductions may have occurred naturally or through existing conservation efforts, rendering the credits generated questionable.
• Environmental Impact:
  • There are doubts about the long-term environmental impact of carbon offset projects, as forests may release stored carbon back into the atmosphere over time due to natural processes or human activities like logging.
• Social Consequences:
  • The pursuit of carbon offsetting projects may inadvertently contribute to further deforestation and displacement, as affected communities seek alternative means of livelihood, perpetuating a cycle of environmental degradation and social injustice.

Challenges and Responses

• Legal Frameworks:
  • The absence of clear legal frameworks governing carbon credits in many African countries leaves Indigenous and local communities vulnerable to exploitation.
  • Governments must prioritize the development of regulations that protect the rights and interests of these communities.
• Transparency and Consent:
  • Companies like Blue Carbon must engage in transparent and inclusive processes that involve meaningful consultation with affected communities before undertaking conservation projects.
  • Prior, informed consent should be a fundamental principle guiding these initiatives.
• International Oversight:
  • International organizations like the United Nations have a role to play in ensuring that carbon offsetting initiatives adhere to principles of equity, justice, and sustainability.
  • Efforts to establish global standards for carbon markets should prioritize the interests of marginalized communities.

SOURCE: https://fortune.com/2024/04/07/environment-carbon-colonialism-africa/