Matthew Walley’s gaze wanders over the vast forest that has sustained his indigenous community in Liberia for generations. Even because the morning sun casts a golden hue across the cover, a sense of unease stays. Their use of the land is threatened and so they have organized to withstand the specter of lack of their livelihood.
Last yr, the Liberian government agreed to sell about 10% of the West African country’s land – similar to 10,931 square kilometers (4,220 square miles) – to Dubai-based Blue Carbon to guard forests that might otherwise be cut down and exploited for agriculture, which is crucial source of livelihood for a lot of communities.
Blue Carbon, which didn’t reply to repeated emails and calls in search of comment, plans to earn cash from that savings by selling carbon credits to polluters to offset their emissions from burning fossil fuels. Some experts argue the model offers little climate profit, while activists label it “carbon colonialism.”
Activists say the federal government has no legal claim to the land and that Liberian law recognizes indigenous land ownership. The government and Blue Carbon reached an agreement in March 2023 – months after the corporate was founded – without consulting local communities concerned about an absence of protections.
“In Liberia, there is no legal framework for carbon credits and therefore as a community we have no rules and regulations to fight for ourselves,” said Walley, whose municipality of Neezuin was capable of cede about 573 square kilometers to Blue Carbon.
A series of agreements between a minimum of five African countries and Blue Carbon could give the corporate control over large tracts of land on the continent. According to human rights groups resembling Amnesty International and Survival International, indigenous populations in Kenya have already been displaced to make way for other carbon credit projects.
They criticized the projects as “culturally destructive,” an absence of transparency and a threat to the livelihoods and food security of rural African populations.
“Many such projects involve horrific human rights abuses against local communities by park rangers,” said Simon Counsell, an independent researcher on conservation projects in Kenya, Congo, Cameroon and other countries.
“Most cases involved forced evictions, most were involved in conflict with local communities and almost none had ever sought or received consent from landowners,” said Counsell, a former director of the Rainforest Foundation UK, a nonprofit organization that’s committed to each human rights and environmental protection.
Africa contributes the least to greenhouse gas emissions, but its vast natural resources resembling forests are crucial within the fight against climate change. Indigenous populations have traditionally relied on forests for his or her livelihoods, highlighting the stress between climate goals and economic reality.
Cash-strapped governments in Africa are drawn to such conservation initiatives because they generate much-needed revenue despite concerns about human rights abuses and transparency.
According to the corporate’s website, Blue Carbon has just one project under development in Zimbabwe, covering about 20% of the country’s land area.
However, since its founding in late 2022, the corporate has secured potentially huge amounts of land in other countries, including Kenya, Liberia, Tanzania and Zambia, through opaque agreements.
In Liberia, the federal government is required to acquire prior, informed consent from communities before using their land for such transactions. But former President George Weah’s government moved forward without them, in accordance with activists and communities.
Communities only became aware after activists mobilized against the deal after a network of non-governmental organizations was leaked. Although the agreement stated that discussions with communities can be held last November, locals and activists reported that this didn’t occur.
“There is no resistance to the fight against climate change, but it must be done in a way that respects people’s rights and does not violate the law,” said Ambulah Mamey, a Liberian activist who has helped lead resistance to the To foment blue carbon agreements.
After protests from communities and activists, Weah’s government halted the deal before last yr’s presidential election but still lost the election.
“We decided to vote out the George Weah government to stop the deal, which will have a devastating impact on communities, but we don’t know if the new government will resume it,” said Walley, the community leader. “We are waiting for you.”
The latest director of Liberia’s Environmental Protection Agency, Emmanuel Yarkpawolo, said the blue carbon deal was made through “a quick process that does not lend itself to a good level of transparency.”
Confirming that the deal is on hold, he said Liberia is currently developing rules for the sale of carbon credits that “emphasize the balance between environmental objectives and the economic well-being of our people and address concerns about the rights of indigenous people, including alternative livelihoods.” shall be taken into consideration.” ”
Blue Carbon sent out invitations to developers in March asking for proposals for carbon offset projects. The company document, which activists shared with the Associated Press, doesn’t say which countries it’s targeting, only that basic land information shall be provided to applicants.
The process appears to be “extraordinarily opaque” given the dimensions of the land area of a number of the countries at stake, said conservation researcher Counsell. He expressed concerns about whether governments understand it, let alone the people living in these areas.
“These are exactly the kind of opaque and unfair agreements that the United Nations should be particularly wary of as it continues to develop the rules for a global carbon market,” Counsell said in an email.
Blue Carbon was founded by Emirati Royal Sheikh Ahmed Dalmook Al Maktoum, whose private holdings include fossil fuel operations. It has not disclosed which governments or firms will buy the credits generated from its carbon projects.
The effectiveness of carbon offsetting itself is debated. One problem is the concept of “additionality,” or the quantity of carbon a project claims to scale back by stopping deforestation. In many cases it is feasible that these reductions still occurred.
A study by Counsell and Survival International on a carbon credit initiative called the Northern Kenya Grassland Carbon Project said ranchers whose livelihoods were upended by the project worked inside “broadly sustainable limits.”
This, Walley said, is analogous to the practice of communities in Liberia, where they’re required by government regulations to conserve forests. In addition, 40% of Liberia’s forest areas are already protected.
“This means that the project has no ‘additionality’ from a climate perspective and the carbon credits generated do not represent real new carbon savings,” Counsell said.
Additionally, over time, trees release the carbon they store back into the atmosphere through natural aging, wildfires or business use, undermining the concept that forests permanently absorb carbon, Counsell said.
There can be the issue of “zero” profit for the climate. Protecting forests in a single area can result in deforestation in other areas as communities affected by conservation projects move to make a living.
