![Major Land Acquisitions by a Dubai Corporation in Africa Spur Concern for Indigenous Peoples’ Way of Life 2 urlhttps3A2F2Fassets.apnews.com2Ff32F582F57f1e971e8f51f48aa2d9998177f2F2b53bcffacdc4b79b584826e2a8d13c7](https://i0.wp.com/theubj.com/uae/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/urlhttps3A2F2Fassets.apnews.com2Ff32F582F57f1e971e8f51f48aa2d9998177f2F2b53bcffacdc4b79b584826e2a8d13c7.jpeg?w=1170)
In the hinterlands of Liberia, Matthew Walley watches with trepidation over the forest, the lifeblood of his ancestral community. Though bathed in the warm glow of dawn, an air of disquiet haunts him. The forest that has provided for his people for countless seasons now hangs in the balance as reports of land sale agreements to a foreign entity cast a shadow over their future.
A startling transaction has taken place: the Liberian government has consented to the sale of approximately 10% of the nation’s territory, a massive 10,931 square kilometers (4,220 square miles), to the Dubai-based Blue Carbon. The firm’s plan centers on halting deforestation and commercial agriculture to instead sell carbon offsets to industries seeking to mitigate their carbon footprint.
Attempts to elicit a response from Blue Carbon were in vain, as the company did not comment on repeated queries. Critics of the carbon credit conservation model argue that it holds slim promise for climate change mitigation and have condemned it as a form of “carbon colonialism.”
Activists contest the government’s claim over this land, citing Liberian laws that recognize indigenous land rights. The contract between the government and Blue Carbon materialized in March 2023, within mere months of the company’s establishment and bypassed any dialogue with the local communities, who foresee a dire lack of safeguarding measures.
“I fear for our community with no regulations in place to defend ourselves,” Walley expressed concern, his community, Neezuin, standing to lose 573 square kilometers to Blue Carbon.
Blue Carbon’s agreements extend beyond Liberia, involving at least five African countries. Similar land control deals in Kenya have already precipitated the displacement of indigenous people for carbon credit initiatives, drawing ire from rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Survival International.
These initiatives have faced sharp criticism for their destructive impact on local cultural practices, opacity, and threats to rural African communities’ sustenance and food security.
Simon Counsell, previously with the Rainforest Foundation UK, speaks of egregious human rights infringements at the hands of park rangers associated with various projects. “Most involve conflicts, and scarcely any have the legitimate consent of the landholders,” he said.
The delicate balance between preserving Africa’s rich natural lands and addressing the economic situations of its communities underscores the complex dynamic between environmental objectives and the real-world needs of African society. Cash-strapped governments in Africa find such conservation ventures appealing sources of revenue, even in light of potential human rights violations.
In Zimbabwe, Blue Carbon’s burgeoning project involves about a fifth of the country’s land. Yet more land across Kenya, Liberia, Tanzania, and Zambia appears to be under the company’s control through nondisclosure pacts dating back to its creation in late 2022.
Despite legal requirements for community consent before land deals in Liberia, the government, under former President George Weah, proceeded without it. Only after activists and an NGO network revealed the news did communities learn of the agreement’s existence.
“Without compromises that respect legal rights and do not infringe upon laws, we cannot support climate change mitigation,” declared Ambulah Mamey, an activist leading the charge against the Blue Carbon contract.
The public outcry and protests prompted Weah’s government to put the deal on hold, and following his defeat in the subsequent election, communities await the new administration’s approach. For now, the deal remains suspended while Liberian authorities craft guidelines for carbon credit sales, as stated by Environmental Protection Agency’s Emmanuel Yarkpawolo.
The transparency of Blue Carbon’s operations has been questioned, given the large areas of land in various countries it may have secured, and the United Nations has been cautioned against such murky and unequal accords as the rules for the global carbon market are fleshed out, Counsell notes.
The efficacy of carbon offsetting itself is contentious. The idea of “additionality” — whether the reductions claimed by a project are genuinely preventing carbon dioxide emissions — is often debatable, and when considered alongside the natural carbon release from trees through aging, fires, or use, it presents a major challenge to the permanence of carbon absorption by forests.
Furthermore, critics argue that such projects could indirectly spur deforestation in different areas, resulting in no real net benefit to the climate, thus mirroring the sustainable practices of communities who rely on the forests for their livelihoods, such as Walley’s in Liberia.
___
The Associated Press receives financial support from numerous private foundations for its climate and environmental reporting. The AP maintains full editorial control over all content. AP’s standards for working with philanthropic organizations, a list of supporters, and the topics funded can be found at AP.org.
FAQs about Indigenous Livelihoods and Carbon Credit Deals in Africa
- What is the primary concern of Indigenous communities with regards to the land deals?
Indigenous communities are concerned about losing access to their traditional lands, which threatens their livelihoods and cultural heritage. - How does Blue Carbon plan to make a profit from these land deals?
Blue Carbon intends to sell carbon credits to industries looking to offset their carbon emissions. - What are some criticisms lodged against the carbon credits system?
Critics argue that carbon credits often lack “additionality,” meaning it’s questionable whether the projects genuinely prevent carbon emissions. There are also concerns about the permanency of carbon absorption by forests and potential human rights violations. - Have local communities been involved in the negotiation process for these land deals?
In many cases, no. Deals have proceeded without the prior consent of Indigenous communities, which is often required by law. - What is the stance of activists and environmental protection groups?
These groups advocate for climate change measures that respect the rights and livelihoods of local communities and abide by legal frameworks.
Conclusion
The unfolding narrative of massive land deals in Africa undertaken by the Dubai-based company Blue Carbon poses stark dilemmas. On one hand, such conservation deals are presented as a means for governments to secure funds while supporting global efforts to mitigate climate change. On the other, the livelihoods, cultural practices, and legal rights of Indigenous populations are at significant risk. The lack of transparency and disregard for community consent only amplify fears of “carbon colonialism,” as lucrative green initiatives overshadow the voices and needs of those living on the land. Ultimately, the push for global environmental goals must not eclipse the fundamental human rights and dignities of the very populations that steward much of the world’s remaining natural landscapes.