Matthew Walley’s gaze spans the great forest that has supported his indigenous community in Liberia for generations. Even as the morning sun casts a golden hue across the canopy, a sense of unease lingers. Their land use is under threat and they have organized themselves to resist the possibility of losing their livelihoods.
Last year, the Liberian government agreed to sell about 10% of the West African country’s land — equivalent to 10,931 square kilometers (4,220 square miles) — to the Dubai-based company Blue Carbon to preserve forests that would otherwise they could be deforested and used. for agriculture, the primary livelihood for many communities.
Blue Carbon, which did not respond to repeated emails and calls seeking comment, plans to profit from this conservation by selling carbon credits to polluters to offset their emissions as they burn fossil fuels. Some experts argue that the model offers little climate benefit, while activists label it “carbon colonialism”.
Activists argue that the government has no legal rights to the land and that Liberian law recognizes indigenous ownership of the land. The government and Blue Carbon reached a deal in March 2023, months after the company launched, without consulting local communities who were concerned about the lack of protections.
“There is no legal framework on carbon credits in Liberia, and therefore we have no rules and regulations to fight for ourselves as a community,” said Walley, whose community, Neezuin, could see about 573 square kilometers ceded to Blue Carbon. .
A series of deals between at least five African countries and Blue Carbon could give the company control over large swaths of land on the continent. In Kenya, indigenous people have already been evicted to make way for more carbon credit projects, according to human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Survival International.
They criticized the projects as “culturally destructive,” lacking transparency and threatening the livelihoods and food security of Africa’s rural populations.
“Many of these projects are associated with terrible human rights abuses against local communities at the hands of park rangers,” said Simon Counsell, an independent researcher of conservation projects in Kenya, Congo, Cameroon and other countries.
“Most had involved evictions, most were involved in conflicts with local people and almost none had ever sought or obtained consent from landowners,” said Counsell, former director of the Rainforest Foundation UK, a non-profit organisation. profit that supports both human rights and environmental protection. .
Africa contributes less to greenhouse gas emissions, but its vast natural resources, such as forests, are crucial in the fight against climate change. Indigenous peoples have traditionally relied on forests for their livelihoods, highlighting the tension between climate goals and economic realities.
Cash-strapped African governments are attracted to these types of conservation initiatives because they generate much-needed revenue despite concerns about human rights abuses and transparency.
Blue Carbon has just one project under development in Zimbabwe, involving about 20% of the country’s land area, according to the company’s website.
However, through opaque deals, the company has potentially secured staggering amounts of land in other countries, including Kenya, Liberia, Tanzania and Zambia, since it formed in late 2022.
In Liberia, the government is required to obtain prior informed consent from communities before using their lands for such arrangements. However, according to activists and communities, former president George Weah’s government moved forward without it.
Communities only learned about it after activists rallied against the deal following a leak through a network of non-governmental organizations. Although the agreement stipulated that talks with the communities would take place last November, locals and activists reported that this did not happen.
“There is no opposition to fighting climate change, but it has to be done in a way that respects people’s rights and doesn’t break the law,” said Ambulah Mamey, a Liberian activist who has helped galvanize opposition to the Blue Carbon agreement.
After protests from communities and activists, Weah’s government blocked the deal before last year’s presidential vote, but still lost the election.
“We decided to vote against George Weah’s government to stop the deal, which will have devastating consequences on communities, but we don’t know if the new government will take it back,” said Walley, the community leader. “We are waiting for them.”
The new director of Liberia’s Environmental Protection Agency, Emmanuel Yarkpawolo, said the Blue Carbon deal was rushed through “a rapid process that does not lend itself to a good level of transparency.”
He confirmed that the agreement is suspended and said that Liberia is now developing rules for the sale of carbon credits, which “will emphasize the balance between environmental objectives and the economic well-being of our people and will take care of concerns about the rights of indigenous peoples, including alternative livelihoods. “
Blue Carbon in March sent out invitations to developers, asking for proposals for carbon offsetting projects. The company document, which activists shared with The Associated Press, does not say which countries are targeted, only that basic land information will be shared with applicants.
The process seems “extraordinarily opaque” given the significant amount of land involved in some countries, said Counsell, a conservation researcher. He has raised concerns about whether governments understand this, let alone the people who live in those areas.
“They are exactly the kind of opaque and unfair agreements that the United Nations should specifically guard against as it continues to develop the rules for a global carbon market,” Counsell said in an email.
Blue Carbon was founded by Royal Emirati Sheikh Ahmed Dalmook Al Maktoum, whose private holdings include fossil fuel operations. He has not disclosed which governments or companies will buy the credits generated by his carbon projects.
The effectiveness of carbon offsetting itself is debated. One concern is the concept of “additionality,” or the amount of carbon a project claims to reduce by preventing deforestation. In many cases, it is possible that such reductions could have happened anyway.
A study by Counsell and Survival International on a carbon credit initiative, called the Northern Kenya Grassland Carbon Project, said farmers whose livelihoods were disrupted by the project operated within “largely sustainable limits”.
This, Walley said, is similar to the practice of communities in Liberia, where they have a duty to conserve forests according to government rules. Furthermore, 40% of Liberia’s forests are already protected.
“This means that the project, in climate terms, has no ‘additionality’ and that any carbon credits generated do not represent real new carbon savings,” Counsell said.
Additionally, over time, trees release the carbon they store into the atmosphere through natural aging, wildfires or commercial use, which undermines the idea that forests permanently absorb carbon, Counsell said .
There is also the problem of “zero” benefit for the climate. Protecting forests in one area can cause deforestation elsewhere as communities affected by conservation projects move to make a living.