CETRI
Introduction
In 2023, the global carbon offset market reached $2 billion, with projections suggesting a hundredfold increase by 2050. This explosive projected growth, touted as a solution to the climate crisis, masks a disturbing reality: carbon markets are fueling a new scramble for African land and perpetuating colonial-era exploitation.
Carbon offset markets operate through the buying and selling of carbon credits. A carbon credit allows the holder to emit one metric ton of carbon dioxide or its equivalent in greenhouse gases. Carbon markets and offsetting practices have been widely embraced as market-based mechanisms to incentivise a transition to a low-carbon economy. These markets provide economic incentives for entities to reduce emissions or invest in offset projects, enabling companies that can reduce emissions cost-effectively to sell their unused credits to those facing higher reduction costs.
However, beneath the veneer of sustainability and development, these mechanisms, particularly in Africa, are unveiling a complex web of injustices, power imbalances, and conflicts over land rights. The very solutions intended to safeguard our planet are, in reality, perpetuating colonial-era land grabs, dispossessing local communities, and entrenching neoliberal agendas that favour foreign interests over the needs of the Global South.
The current structure of carbon markets and offset projects involves the enclosure of vast tracts of land, including primary forests and ecosystems, effectively continuing a legacy of land expropriation. This dispossession of ancestral lands and livelihoods not only prioritizes carbon sinks and conservation areas over the subsistence farming, pastoralism, and cultural practices of local communities, particularly Indigenous peoples, but also disrupts their way of life. The neoliberal framework within which these offset schemes are promoted enables corporations in the Global North to outsource their environmental responsibilities and effectively greenwash their unsustainable practices by purchasing offsets.
It is becoming clear that the pursuit of market-based climate solutions, beyond addressing pressing climate change concerns, inadvertently propagates social injustice and human rights violations that deserve urgent redress.
Carbon markets and their role in climate change mitigation
In the face of the pressing challenge to limit global warming to below 2°C, as emphasized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, carbon markets have emerged as a key strategy in the global fight against climate change. The concept, introduced by the Kyoto Protocol in 2005, marked the birth of carbon as a tradable commodity, ushering in a new era of emissions financialization.
Carbon markets offer a pathway for industries that face challenges in reducing their carbon footprint, such as the hard-to-abate sectors, to contribute to emissions reduction and drive green investments. They provide a mechanism for these sectors, which cannot easily or quickly reduce their emissions, to still participate in climate change mitigation efforts. This flexibility allows for a more inclusive transition to a low-carbon economy, where all actors can play a part.
Nature-based solutions, particularly Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+), play a significant role in the carbon offsets arena. With the market’s exponential growth, investors are increasingly attracted to sectors such as plantation forestry, especially in Africa and other developing regions rich in forest resources.
The carbon market undeniably provides several benefits, including driving investments in green technologies and conservation projects, creating economic incentives for emissions reduction, and potentially accelerating the transition to a low-carbon economy. However, the prioritization of market mechanisms and the neoliberal foundation on which it is based undermine collective action and democratic decision-making, perpetuating global inequalities while serving as a pretext for economic expansion, which overshadows genuine environmental progress.
By reducing the value of ecosystems to their carbon storage capacity, this approach enables the privatization of commons. It increases corporate control over forest resources, ignoring the intrinsic value of ecosystems and their broader ecological functions. Through the implementation of such a market-based mechanism, wealthy nations and corporations are able to effectively buy their way out of their emission reduction responsibilities by merely investing in offset projects, while developing countries bear the brunt of climate change impacts and are left to adapt to a changing environment. This dynamic perpetuates the historical extraction of resources and labour from the Global South, fueling the consumption patterns and development agendas of the Global North.
Carbon markets also enable greenwashing, where polluters make false claims of emission reduction achieved. . Wealthy nations and corporations in the Global North are effectively outsourcing their emissions reduction responsibilities to the Global South through offset projects. Whether these projects provide an added value to emission reduction is often questionable, and the promised benefits to local communities often do not materialise.
Carbon offset projects perpetuate neocolonial power dynamics by reinforcing dependency relationships. Developing countries, in their pursuit of investment and revenue, may become reliant on carbon offset projects funded by entities from the Global North. This dependency can limit their agency in negotiating project terms, leading to deals that favour foreign investor interests over those of local communities.
The focus on market-based solutions diverts attention from the need for more fundamental structural changes in energy, transportation, and industrial systems. Rather, land grabs, displacement of Indigenous communities, and the destruction of biodiverse ecosystems to make way for monoculture plantations optimised for carbon removal have become the dominant trend of carbon offset projects.
The complexities of land rights in Africa
Land rights in Africa are inherently tied to a complex historical narrative of colonial exploitation, dispossession, and ongoing struggles for justice and recognition. The legacy of colonial land grabs, where Indigenous communities were forcibly removed from their ancestral lands, continues to cast a long shadow over present-day land tenure systems.
Customary land tenure, prevalent in many African societies, is rooted in unwritten rules and cultural practices that recognize collective community rights. This system is deeply intertwined with cultural identity and traditional ways of life. However, customary land tenure frequently comes into conflict with statutory or formal land tenure regimes imposed during the colonial era and perpetuated in the post-independence period.
The interplay between customary and statutory land tenure regimes has resulted in tensions and insecurity for local communities. Customary systems provide a sense of communal ownership and connection to the land but are often not formally recognized or protected by national laws and policies. Statutory systems, on the other hand, are typically based on individual land ownership and privatization, which often marginalizes traditional land use practices and excludes communities from decision-making processes.
Many African countries inherited unequal land distribution patterns and a history of dispossession from their colonial past, perpetuating social and economic inequalities. This has fueled ongoing land reform movements and demands for the recognition of customary land rights, as well as the redistribution of land to address historical injustices.
Women play a pivotal role in African agriculture, yet face significant discrimination in land rights. Customary laws often restrict women’s land ownership and inheritance rights. According to the UN, women own less than 20% of the world’s land, with the disparity particularly acute in Africa. Efforts to address this, such as Kenya’s 2010 constitution recognizing women’s equal rights to land, have faced challenges in implementation.
Land rights in Africa are further complicated by contestations over natural resources, particularly in regions rich in minerals, oil, or valuable ecosystems. The extraction of natural resources has often led to the displacement of local communities, environmental degradation, and conflicts over land ownership. The entry of foreign investors and the establishment of conservation areas or carbon offsets exacerbate these tensions, marginalizing and excluding local communities from decisions about their own land.
Carbon markets and the new contestations for land rights
The emergence of carbon markets has ignited a fresh wave of land rights disputes in Africa, exacerbating the already intricate issues surrounding land ownership and utilisation. The growing demand for carbon offsets has sparked violent land grabs, frequently infringing upon the rights of local and indigenous communities. Several instances of community rights violations have surfaced, with projects being undertaken without adequate consultation or consent from those bearing the brunt of the impact.
The imposition of conservation or renewable energy projects without the free, prior, and informed consent of local communities, as outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, is leading to the destruction of biodiverse ecosystems, disruption of water cycles, and loss of habitat for endangered species. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, families were kicked off land they had owned and farmed for generations to make way for a carbon offsetting project for oil giant Total Energies.
This situation, dubbed the “new scramble for Africa,” mirrors the land grabs of the colonial era, perpetuating a cycle of dispossession and marginalisation. As concerning is the surge in carbon offsetting agreements between African nations and Middle Eastern investors, “the Dubai-Africa carbon deals”, raising pressing questions about equitable benefit distribution and the potential for greenwashing.
Projects centred on reforestation, afforestation, and conservation demand vast tracts of land, intensifying competition and pitting local communities against investors. The rights of indigenous peoples, who constitute a small global population yet safeguard a significant proportion of global biodiversity, are often disregarded, leading to land disputes, arrests, and property confiscation.
The implications of carbon market agreements, which can span decades, are profound and far-reaching. Many of these transactions have occurred unbeknownst to governments in many African regions. Instances of “carbon cowboys” employing violence and deception to expel Indigenous people from their territories have surfaced. The vast expanse of land and labour devoted to tree-planting initiatives has often resulted in food shortages and unequal benefit distribution.
REDD+ projects aimed at reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation have had mixed outcomes. While they attract funding for forest conservation and infrastructure, they have also constrained Indigenous communities’ livelihoods and, in certain cases, led to forced evictions and harassment. The operations of Green Resources, funded by Nordic countries, encapsulate the troubling trends within carbon market projects. In Uganda, Green Resources’ endeavors have directly impacted over 8,000 people, including instances of forced evictions and restricted access to essential resources. With a long-term lease to sell carbon credits, the company has worsened food insecurity, caused the loss of land access, and contributed to environmental degradation through the use of agrochemicals.
The pursuit of corporate “climate neutral” targets has fueled the demand for forest-based carbon offsets, with Global North companies like KLM and Philips engaging in projects of questionable impact. The Kikonda Forest Restoration Project in Uganda, involving KLM, faced allegations of violating land use rights, as documented in the Gold Standard’s 2016 report. The jurisdictional approach to carbon crediting, introduced through Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, has introduced further complexities.
This approach has ignited disputes between Indigenous groups and governments over carbon ownership, as witnessed in Indonesia, Kenya, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. This is typified by the Kenyan government’s eviction of the Ogiek community from the Mau Forest, purportedly in the name of climate action and forest protection. Indigenous communities have resorted to legal action, challenging their government’s claims of state ownership of carbon.
Navigating the tensions: Towards equitable solutions
Carbon markets have emerged as a pivotal mechanism in the global effort to combat climate change, offering incentives for emissions reduction and economic opportunities. However, this neoliberal environmental agenda unveils and exacerbates historical and current inequalities, perpetuating a form of neocolonialism that shifts the burden of mitigating climate change to less developed regions.
Carbon markets enable various forms of colonialism – green, carbon, and neo – all of which contribute to environmental injustices and power imbalances between the Global North and South. Green colonialism co-opts environmental narratives to perpetuate power imbalances, dispossession, and environmental injustices. Carbon colonialism allows wealthy nations and corporations to outsource their emissions reduction responsibilities by purchasing carbon credits from developing countries. Neocolonialism is reinforced as the Global North maintains economic and environmental dominance through these market mechanisms.
To build a more just and sustainable future, the structural inequalities and the neoliberal foundations perpetuating global carbon inequalities need to be addressed by prioritising collective action and democratic governance. Regulatory frameworks that protect community land rights and incorporate customary land tenure systems must be strengthened. Local communities and Indigenous knowledge must be centered in decision-making processes regarding land use. Ensure free, prior, and informed consent of local communities for any initiatives impacting their lands and resources. Promote sustainable development aligned with local needs and priorities and provide access to legal support and capacity building for affected communities.
The challenge before us is significant, but so is the opportunity to redefine our relationship with the land, each other, and our shared planet. The path forward requires a fundamental rethinking of our approach to climate change mitigation. We must move beyond market-based solutions that risk perpetuating injustice and embrace strategies that centre on social equity, ecological integrity, and the rights of local communities. Researchers, policymakers, and global citizens have a collective responsibility to ensure that our efforts to combat climate change do not come at the cost of the most vulnerable.
