Carbon Credits and the Scramble for African Forests: Land Grab or Carbon Colonialism?

A new wave of scramble for Africa has commenced in earnest. A substantial part of African forests is up for grabs. A major factor propelling this rush for #Africa's rainforests is its capacity to slow down global warming. It has been acknowledged that Africa’s rainforest has more capacity than the #Amazon rainforest as they are better at absorbing atmospheric carbon dioxide. How did the scramble start, one may ask?

The scramble for Africa's forests is the outcome of the #ParisAgreement. Article Six of the Paris Agreement recognizes that countries can pursue voluntary cooperation in implementing their #NDCs. It allows the government or private firms in one country to pay for emissions reductions in another and receive the credit for their own Paris Agreement goals. This is a practical method for lowering #GHG emissions. The Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcome, often known as #carboncredit, is part of the Paris Agreement. Under the new regime, polluting businesses are allowed to offset their carbon emissions and include them in their voluntary emission reductions. However, the ability of governments is limited as most countries have limited forests to offset their carbon emissions. Hence the rush for Africa's rainforest where there is not only abundant rainforests but are cheap with weak carbon governance making it possible for individuals to acquire large swathes of land in the name of carbon prospecting.

Land Grabbing or Eco-colonialism?

The rush for Africa’s rainforest is taking a new dimension. Last week, words spread across Africa about how a single private business is on a buying spree of all accessible trees. Sheikh Ahmed Dalmook Al Maktoum, a member of Dubai's royal family, is at the forefront of the new drive to control the carbon market. As of late, Blue Carbon has grabbed 60 million acres of forest land in Africa, which is comparable to the whole land mass of the United Kingdom. The corporation has taken up extensive forests in #Zimbabwe, #Tanzania, #Liberia, and #Zambia. Blue?Carbon?has?inked?four?MOUs?in?Africa?thus?far,?covering?a?fifth?of?Zimbabwe?(18?million?acres),?nearly?a?tenth?of?Liberia?and?Zambia?(2.5?million?acres?and?20?

million?acres,?respectively),?and?8%?of?Tanzania?(an?additional?20?million?acres). On the surface, land grabs and carbon credits are advantageous to both the host communities and investors. However, Africa's capacity to take part in the carbon trade, estimated to be worth $100 billion, is limited. This is attributable to a mix of sociotechnical and political elements. Additionally, the rules governing the carbon markets are non-existent, yet technological procedures of carbon trade remain ad hoc given that the regulatory authority has not been constituted. This has created a vacuum carbon prospectors are exploiting.

A major company exploiting Africa’s weak carbon governance is Blue Carbon. It is a firm based in the UAE with the goal of freeing up space for carbon credit. But the nature and form of its operations give the lie to its environmental salvation outlook. For instance, it plans to publish an MOU with African states at #COP28. This raises the question of why the a delay till COP28 in Dubai to enter the MOU. Is it driven by profit since the modalities for operationalization of Article 6 will be unveiled in an event where he will play a key role in setting the regulations governing carbon trading? Interestingly, Article Six on carbon trading is a prominent conference agenda item in #Dubai, where a #UAE business already controls the size of the United Kingdom in Africa. Is this a case of climate trading or a new rush for Africa? So, it is right to say that the implementation of Article 6 at COP28 would not only re-enact the colonial era race for Africa, but it is also another strategy to impede Africa's development while benefitting from nature. Here's why: At COP28 Blue?Carbon?plans?to?offer?credits?to?governments?so?that?they?may?be?used?to?

meet?their?national?emissions?targets.Carbon?credits?are?theoretically?designed?to?produce?cash,?support?government?development,?and?improve?rural?economies?across?Africa,?but?that?is?where?the?story?ends. Carbon?trades,?in?actuality,?cheat?governments,?forest?communities,?and?the?

environment. Worse,?they?are?rushed through?by?African?governments?with?little?understanding?of?carbon?markets. There?is?also?the?issue?of?corruption. Personal profits influence the deals reached by governments when an army of unscrupulous politicians with a short-term view is in charge. As such, African countries ensnarled in this carbon trade cannot reach their GHG reduction targets?and will be forced to reduce emissions from other sources, including industrial processes hence their development.

Carbon credits: A boon or a curse?

Carbon credit could spell boon or doom depending on your stand. The Liberian forest negotiation indicates that the carbon credit arrangement is a curse since it has been hijacked where the primary beneficiary is the politicians and carbon prospectors such as Blue Carbon. In the deal, the Liberian government will receive just 30% of the proceeds from the 33-year agreement, while Blue Carbon will receive 70%. This is a robbery in broad daylight. According to Jutta Kill, a #German carbon market researcher, the final arrangement with Liberia is “an extraordinary giveaway of power to Blue Carbon in return for airy-fairy royalty promises.”

It is unquestionably a lousy bargain, not just because it is unlawful and exploits current and future generations, but also because it violates existing land rights legislation, removing people's ownership of property. Such a forest agreement is therefore counterproductive because it closes one door on emissions in carbon prospectors' countries while opening another ditch in host communities. This will not only raise emissions but will also hasten climate change. Again, most carbon offset programs make statements that are not only false but are exaggerated, particularly on issues of avoided emissions. Again, there is the fact that shifting the emission responsibility of foreign countries to Africa will not reduce pollution, but rather exacerbate it. The legality of these deals is another matter entirely. They are not only illegal but there is secrecy and rush to consummate the deals. Another important worry is the amount of money that the government, forests, and communities would receive by giving over a tenth of their country to a foreign business. With these complexities, we conclude that carbon credit will undermine Africa's chances of growth while also undercutting the Parties to the Paris Agreement's NDC pledges. But it could also be an opportunity if properly managed.

Carbon Credits' Future

The final step of Africa's underdevelopment is the use of carbon market levers to repair the deteriorated environment. The first circle was the 'civilizing mission' of Africa, while large-scale land acquisition finished what started at the Berlin Conference in 1885. The latest phase of forest grabs is a continuation of agricultural land grabs of 1980-1990. The rush for carbon credits will accelerate in the near future, similar to the situation of land grabs. It also means more pollution and loss of Africa's forest resources in places that are not part of the carbon market. Certainly, choices made at COP28 on this issue will not define the carbon market in Africa. Its greatest accomplishment will be in criminalizing individuals while simultaneously causing additional pollution in other regions where the landless majority has been forcibly transferred.

Said, the future of Africa's forests is not in the hands of carbon traders, nor will carbon marketization be utilized to lower excessive emissions. This is feasible if the forests' genuine owners are included in the decarbonization process including negotiations on carbon credits. ?Until then, Africa will remain another forest frontier where illogical frontier mentality reigns. It is also where the commercial worth of trees can only foster economic gains for a limited number of people while the vast majority of the people who are mainly from rural communities have limited benefits and are forced to make a living from marginal land which, then, is depleted to meet their food and energy requirements. So, setting the modalities for Africa's carbon market in December beneath the desert?tents of COP28?is far from the last words?on it.