NRAN decries COP29 as a failure , insisting that the newly added language of new collective quantified goals (NCQG) is just another ploy of the global north and transnational corporations to avoid bearing responsibility for their unchecked emissions which have caused Climate change which disproportionately affects the global south. NRAN opines that vulnerability plus hazard is equal to disaster and we believe that these disasters can be mitigated or averted.
“African natural resources and biodiversity are being promoted as central tools of market-based solutions to the current environmental crisis, particularly through REDD+ and the production of carbon credits.”[1]
COP29 being called the Finance COP has sparked several debates in the civil society space. This is because the word finance can be interpreted differently in conversations involving the global north versus the global south. This difference further plays out in the type of partnerships brokered, the alliances formed etc. Calling COP29 a Finance COP when the world grapples with the ever increasing devastating impacts of Climate Change has the potential of shifting the conversations and negotiations toward a narrative that favours only the wealthy and powerful transnational corporations, nations and governments which are largely responsible for 80% of the global emissions fueling climate change. A Finance COP will enable a market based mechanism which strongly encourages carbon trading. This fundamentally flawed approach incentivizes the private sector to profit from non-transparent systems. One key outcome of COP29 could be finalizing the global carbon markets established under Article 6.2 and 6.4 of the Paris Agreement. Article 6 has the potential to produce the largest global carbon market we have ever seen. The specific elements of this market’s methods and implementation are still being negotiated. However, parties of the UNFCCC will negotiate the inclusion of REDD+ as a carbon offsets in Article 6.4 at COP 29. The importance of this cannot be overstated – this would be the largest carbon market on the planet and incite a dramatic increase in forest-based carbon offsets[1].
While finance in itself should be a positive and welcome ideology, it is imperative to check that under the guise of financing; new forms of colonialism rooted on false solutions are not fueled and hence further exacerbate the climate crisis the global south is facing currently.
First and foremost, let’s look at what “Green Colonialism” and the “REDD Deception” really mean. These terms refer to criticisms of climate finance practices that are viewed as extending colonialist and extractivist patterns under the guise of climate action. This critique centers on mechanisms like REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) and other broader climate finance strategies that aim to mitigate climate change by funding preservation and reforestation in developing countries. While these initiatives sound beneficial in theory, they have drawn backlash for inadvertently exacerbating inequalities, undermining indigenous rights, and prioritizing western interests. After 20 years of carbon trading, it is clear that market-based mechanisms do not work. Emissions keep increasing while the same drivers of the crisis can falsely claim to be ‘carbon neutral’. REDD is an outright pollution credit. It provides an easy excuse for the fossil fuel industry, high-polluting businesses and governments to continue extraction. These unreliable technologies postulated by carbon market advocates are absorbing much of the very needed public funding that should be put into real climate action and hence they must be stopped.
Here’s a breakdown of the key issues:
1. Green Colonialism
- “Green Colonialism” describes how climate finance programs, often from wealthy countries or multinational corporations, seek to address climate change by using land and resources in the Global South leading to massive land grabbing, typically with little or no regard for local communities’ needs or rights[1].
- These projects exploit the land of indigenous and marginalized communities, displacing them from their territories in the name of conservation or carbon offsetting.
- Critics argue this perpetuates colonialist dynamics, where the Global North asserts control over Global South resources, this time under the narrative of ecological protection, mitigation and action.
2. REDD and the REDD+ Deception
- REDD+ aims to pay countries or communities for preserving forests, theoretically reducing emissions. However, critics argue that REDD+ projects often fail to protect communities who have historically managed these lands.
- The “deception” is that research has proven that REDD+ does not lead to genuine reductions in emissions, as wealthy countries and corporations can purchase carbon or pollution credits instead of reducing their own emissions.
- It is touted that REDD is based on simple mathematical calculations, simply a matter of carbon math. Fossil fuel projects are carbon sources and forests are carbon sinks. The more carbon sinks the better, because they counteract fossil fuel combustion.
- A strong deception about REDD is the false narrative which postulates that people need the money from the carbon markets and that Carbon markets and REDD+ are climate finance.
- REDD is very deceptive as it allows wealthy entities to “offset” their carbon footprint without policy changes and implementation, while local communities face restrictions on land they rely on for their livelihoods, sustenance and cultural identity.
3. Undermining Indigenous Rights
- Indigenous communities, who have stewarded lands for centuries, are often sidelined in REDD+ and other carbon offset programs. These projects enable carbon colonialism, taking away sovereignty and jurisprudence of Indigenous communities over their territories.[2]
- These communities lose their right to traditional practices on their lands or be forced into restrictive agreements that benefit the interests of external corporations or countries.
- There are no safeguards to protect Indigenous Peoples, women and forest dependent communities from the predatory and land-grabbing practices of REDD+, carbon brokers, conservation NGOs, carbon market managers, banks and states. Increasing research from civil society, academia and the media evidences the abuses and rights’ violations that are intrinsic to the profit-seeking offset industry.
4. Corruption and Unbalanced Power Relations
- The private sector administers the voluntary markets and makes billions of dollars on a fake commodity that ends up void while causing human rights violations. New start-ups enter the conversations as demonstrated experts rather than as opportunists with unproven tech. Thus including the private sector profit-seeking interests into any UN system undermines action on climate change.
- The carbon markets industry promotes the idea that carbon projects can be accurately verified and the credits they generate represent emissions reduction or removals. This is very misleading and false, as shown by increasing research evidencing inflated baselines and the impossibility to prove additionality or permanence.
5. Unveiling the disguise
- REDD+ is marketed as a means to reduce deforestation. Where as many REDD+ projects promote monoculture plantations as part of afforestation and reforestation and logging. A lot of REDD+ projects are implemented in protected areas which are not areas prone to deforestation. Therefore, REDD+ is used not to reduce deforestation but to promote monoculture and logging.
- REDD/REDD+ is based on the colonial, racist and patriarchal premise that the traditional uses of the forests by communities is causing deforestation. Most of these projects target communities while leaving the real drivers of deforestation (agribusiness, plantation industry, mining, fossil fuel extraction etc.) untouched. These industries driving the large-scale deforestation do in fact profit by establishing offset projects.
- Indigenous Peoples have been tricked into REDD+ projects and programmes and rarely benefit from any funding. In many cases, Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) is not upheld, rules are violated, communities are divided and only certain people benefit. These projects allow carbon traders, brokers and conservation organizations access to Indigenous Peoples’ territories with impunity[1].
- Carbon math is not so simple. REDD/REDD+ (and all forest carbon offsets for that matter) ignore the differences between fossil carbon and biological carbon, if we want to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere no amount of carbon sinks will help, we must stop emissions from fossil carbon. This means a concrete and real phase out of fossil fuels.[2]
- REDD/REDD+ does not ‘create’ new forests. At its core REDD+ is a carbon offsetting scheme, and usually ends up funding the monoculture tree plantations industry. A tree plantation is not a forest by any stretch of the imagination. Soil health, biodiversity, ecosystem health, and biocultural practices of forest-dependent communities are all lost in tree plantations.
- The communities in which REDD/REDD+ projects are created are convinced to have them using the allure of payments for their forest conservation work, often pitched as a climate finance tool. This could not be further from reality. Carbon markets are not climate finance.
- REDD projects are nothing more than greenwashing[3] and this is not by coincidence but rather a consequence of the way carbon credits are designed – there are massive financial interests at stake for project developers, certifiers, and polluting industry in the creation and ‘success’ of these offsets
- REDD+ is a violation of the sacred and a violation of Mother Earth.
Climate finance has the potential to support sustainable development, however it must be participatory where frontline communities with real climate solutions such as agroecology, Indigenous knowledge based promoting actions have policy and decision-making power
– Carbon markets/pricing systems should be eliminated; Nature is not a commodity to be bargained with and sold to the highest bidder.
– Ensuring projects genuinely reduce emissions, respect indigenous rights, and distribute economic benefits equitably is key to avoiding the “colonial” legacy of climate finance. Climate Finance to the global south should be paid as a matter of historical climate debt and reparations and not as financial aid which are presently measly loans with ridiculous interest conditions.
[1] https://earth.org/green-colonialism/
[2] https://no-redd.africa/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/REDD_15_-years_ENG.pdf
[3] Operation Greenwashing: Brazil’s Federal Police carry out operation against criminal group suspected of selling US$34 million illegal carbon credits
[1] Explainer: What Is Green Colonialism? | Earth.Org
[2] Ending Colonialism Means Ending REDD+ | World Rainforest Movement
[1] DCJ CM & REDD+ Factsheets https://demandclimatejustice.org/
[1] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pHEFa18MFc94XyYrzvN8neSZb1Fr38q4/view?usp=sharing