ARTICLE 6: TROJAN HORSE FOR AFRICA AT COP28?

To say that there will be difficulties in implementing Article 6 is to state the obvious. This is because Article 6 makes provision for some Parties “to pursue voluntary cooperation in the implementation of their NDCs to allow for higher ambition in their mitigation and adaptation actions and to promote sustainable development and environmental integrity."

However, there are divergences on multiple levels between the goals of indigenous communities and their governments, while the prospectors’ goal for the environment is at variance with the peoples’ perspective. In fact, there are several issues linked with integrity requirements and eligibility activities. The primary concerns linked with eligibility include "avoidance activities," REDD+ eligibility, methodology development, and human rights safeguards. The issue here is whether GHG emissions should be avoided or reduced and removed. Another point of contention is whether GHG avoidance efforts may be utilized to create carbon credits.

Even though activities involving the elimination or reduction of GHG emissions are specifically included in the scope of the mechanism under Article 6 of the Rulebook, they still remain a thorny concern. For instance, the critical question of whether to include actions regarding the reduction of GHG emissions was left unsettled.

The Gathering Storm

The clause allowing states to utilize carbon credits in their Nationally Determined Contribution ("NDC") to the Paris Agreement is a major point of debate. The problem here is, how can you exchange emissions with another nation? Isn't it theft to pay Paul's debt to Peter?? According to Article 6.4, a centralized framework for the distribution of carbon credits is to be in place, within which countries can develop their own bilateral agreements for the transfer of "internationally transferred mitigation outcomes" (ITMOs).? What has emerged is that Article 6.4 merely filled one gap while opening another gap by setting up new opportunities for prospectors to profit from nature. This is because they are expected to define the manner of trade, revenue sharing formula, and, most crucially, what has been provided as extra advantages to host communities and the forest – the principle of Additionality.

A related point is the establishment of a grievance body. Even though the grievance mechanism for Article 6.4 projects has yet to be finalized it is also not void of crisis related to execution. Based on this, we dare to ask: Who will administer it? Accepted, the grievance mechanism is intended to allow people and communities negatively impacted by Article 6.4 projects to appeal Supervisory Body decisions or request that a grievance be referred to an independent body. However, will it not be hijacked by those with vested interests in Africa’s carbon markets? Is it a coincidence the Article is a major point of negotiation at COP28 which is the host to the summit? Yet, the country owns almost 70 million acres of Africa. ?

With the lack of stakeholder engagement prior to moving forward and approving the activity, I doubt if the summit will not rubber-stamp existing obnoxious practices in Africa. Once more, there is the worry of overlooking other alternative plans for reducing carbon emissions. It is questioned if the current offset program won't crowd out other decarbonization initiatives like lowering an organization's own emission levels.?Essentially, emitting entities are left off the hook and left with the juncture to sin no more. Rather, to emit as they so desire. This means the polluter pay principle has now taken a new face of offshoring emission debt or guilt.

Once again, the substance of the 'permission statement' threw a shadow over carbon credit systems. It is frequently ambiguous. Specifying which countries may utilize the carbon credit to meet their NDC remains a fundamental difficulty.? It is conceivable that African countries would oppose hurriedly negotiated treaties in the future on the basis that they have impaired their?development as well as subsequent?NDC submissions. It is essential that the submission of rainforest carbon offsets in the NDC remain the primary responsibility of the host community, rather than another organization that has wasted its emission quota on the extravagant altar of overconsumption of?wealthy goods. The inaugural statement should explain this problem as it is likely to cause a catastrophe in the future as impoverished countries' emissions rise.

Again, certain industrial northern nations claim that GHG avoidance shouldn't count in carbon credits. The argument is that including GHG emission reductions might jeopardize the environmental integrity of the Article 6.4 mechanism due to concerns about baseline estimates and the complicated issue of additionality. Others argue that "the environmental integrity of the A6.4 mechanism could be seriously undermined if emission avoidance under A6.4 is allowed, thereby crediting the conservation of existing carbon stocks or risk reduction exercises, without pre-defined emission reductions and without a clear demonstration of additionality." Still, this is a difficult situation. The lack of proof of additionality renders carbon credits a massive sham.

Carbon Credits: Disaster Waiting to Happen?

A growing market for carbon is emerging throughout Africa without any regulations or laws. The lack of clarity on whether the carbon schemes are intended to fulfil the NDC of the host country or are intended for other global mitigation goals will mar the outcome of COP28. Therefore, more explanation of the authorization, including its timeliness, is required. Sadly, this is a complex problem. Host communities are not permitted to employ offsets for their NDC as the fundamental objective of carbon credits is really international mitigation outcomes rather than host community sustainable development. Carbon credit schemes are a disaster waiting to happen. In a stable economy such as the US, schemes of conservation are feasible. But in Africa, it is an entirely different ballgame for obvious reasons.

With the rise in carbon offset schemes, rainforests have been transmogrified into economic force where carbon credits' magical spread is applied, then viola! An automatic transformation of the people’s well-being takes place. This is not the case. To reason along this line amounts to wishful thinking. In fact, it is dependent on the people who are the real change agents being custodians of the culture and inheritance including rainforests. What is most likely to occur is the readjustments of the peoples’ demand for resources- changing from one protected forest to another less protected one. The end result is that heightened depletion at the new source of livelihood will negate the gains of conservation achieved at the offset scheme.

The way ahead

It is trite to say that carbon credit which is the new ‘black gold’ can transform African economies. Equally factual, Africa’s natural resources can reduce emissions by around 1.5 billion tons of CO2 equivalent year. The Congo Basin rainforests have surpassed Amazonia as a carbon sink, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), making Africa's potential contributions to stabilizing the Earth's climate significant. But using Africa’s rainforests for carbon credits could be Africa’s Achilles Heel. This is due to it being a double-edged sword that can lead to extensive implosion of rural economy hence pollution while also promoting growth, if properly managed. But the few steps taken so far indicate it is a Trojan horse since it is another sad story waiting to happen. It could lead to a bitter end with a sorrowful twist awaiting to happen not just in the host communities but also in the pristine forests.

Overcoming this is only possible if mitigation options from the 3.8 billion tons of CO2-equivalent can be fully implemented in the years 2020–2030 (at a pace of 380 million tons of CO2 per year) through transparent, and equitable schemes. All said, Africa’s carbon offset crisis is no longer a far-off chance. It is a political reality necessitating proper management. It may seem that carbon credit deals are misallocated to private ends. This is a time bomb. Building new bridges to the African rainforest must ensure the participation of stakeholders and the development of carbon offset projects through strong, transparent leadership. Accounting mechanisms are required to ensure transparency. Africa's growth and development through increasing access to funding and capabilities are required. However, funding strategies should not be limited to carbon trading; instead, existing funding sources and other types of sustainable finance should be deployed to reduce the deprivation experienced by the reinforcement of climate risks.