Carbon credit certification bodies guarantee in principle that any emission reduction project will bring real climate benefits.
The key to issuing carbon credits for REDD+ projects is to determine the baseline deforestation rate in a reference area with similar characteristics.
The observed rate of deforestation in the project area was then subtracted from the baseline to determine the “additionality” – the prevention of deforestation – resulting from project implementation.
REDD+ project sells ‘worthless’ carbon credits
However, a joint investigation go through protector, time and source material revealed that 94% of REDD+ carbon offsets certified by Verra, the world’s leading carbon credit certification body, are “worthless”.
Basically, the baseline scenario is carefully chosen such that forest protection programs result in no measurable additional CO22 avoid.
Villa charges a commission for each carbon credit they approve, creating an apparent conflict of interest that incentivizes an overestimation of carbon credits that can be sold.
Critics have long argued that carbon offsets are little more than empty talk for the fossil fuel industry to sell. Guilt-Free Fossil Fuels. Even some carbon credit brokers themselves refer to carbon-neutral fossil fuels as “obvious nonsense“.
In four case studies recently added to EJAtlas, it was found that each of the REDD+ projects surveyed had an “inflated baseline” that greatly exaggerated the prevention of deforestation.
in the following cases Cordillera Azul National Park (PNCAZ) Peru and Mataven Bush Aboriginal Reserve In Colombia, the researchers found no “additionality” because the areas had been given legally protected status before the REDD+ project was established.
In other words, carbon projects cannot stop deforestation in areas where effective preventive measures are already in place.
Likewise, in the following cases Kariba REDD+ in Zimbabwe and Luangwa Community Forest Project In Zambia, the project area is located around a protected national park. In Luangwa, the main drivers of deforestation in the reference area were found to be quite different from those in the project area.
Little economic benefit to local communities
Proceeds from the sale of carbon offsets are intended to benefit communities within the project area by providing livelihood alternatives that theoretically lead to deforestation.
However, carbon brokers, who mediate between private companies and organizations managing offset projects, typically receive a significant portion of sales revenue.
Carbon credit broker South Pole, which advises Verra, also takes a commission on every carbon credit sold to international buyers.
After the South Pole came under intense scrutiny it was found One of its flagship programs, Kariba REDD+, gave out 30 times more points than it should have. Investigations showed that Antarctic company executives knew it was a problem, and some employees even resigned over the disclosure.
Furthermore, Antarctica received 73% more commission from Kariba REDD+ than was formally agreed through carbon market speculation.
The NGOs and businesses implementing REDD+ projects in all four case studies had unverifiable financial distribution contracts.
The purpose of these intermediaries is to ensure that revenue from credit sales is distributed to communities through legally binding agreements, but without a regulatory body, regional communities are easily exploited by project promoters.
In both cases in Africa, the project businesses were found to be registered in tax havens, and even set up cryptocurrencies in the tax havens to sell points originating from the Kariba REDD+ program.
In the case of PNCAZ, the Kichwa community lacked clarity on the sale of carbon credits and did not receive any financial or economic benefits from the NGO managing the project.
Opaque financial transactions leave large accountability gaps, making intended indigenous and territorial community beneficiaries potential victims of graft.
Local communities are deprived of basic needs and traditions
In PNCAZ, some farming communities were removed from the land to make way for the reserve, and some Kichwa villages were not removed, but the park boundaries were specifically drawn to exclude them from the reserve.
For these Kichwa communities, this means that they are no longer allowed to hunt, fish, gather food, or farm in their ancestral territories without official permits, limiting the number of days they can enter the reserve, causing them to lose Livelihood, even in trouble. In some cases malnutrition develops.
The territory of the Kichwa community has also been violated by illegal loggers and coca growers, and when community members report these, they are ignored by local authorities because they have no legally recognized land tenure. Despite this, members of the Kichwa community have received death threats from drug dealers asking them to remain silent.
In Kariba and Luangwa, case studies revealed disenfranchisement of local communities in project governance.
Community members are unaware of the project and have lost traditional ties to their territories due to concerns about armed patrols and restrictions on who can use the land for foraging or hunting. However, these restrictions do not apply to paying customers traveling on safari in the project area.
In the case of Luangwa, for example, Eni even became the managing partner of the REDD+ project, but failed to deliver on its promises to the residents.
This year, Italian news crews discovered that the oil giant had built a new classroom in Luangwa but refused to commission the building to the school, leaving the building vacant for more than a year.
Violations of the right to free, prior and informed consent
The United Nations’ criteria for setting up REDD+ projects requires a Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) process with local communities.
In the PNCAZ case, however, the Kichwa community won a lawsuit against the Peruvian government in April this year for violating its FPIC rights, leading the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to formally demand urgent action from the state.
In Luangwa, one of the project partners, USAID, even admitted that the FPIC process was inadequate, and that in all case studies local communities did not understand the abstract concept of carbon credits.
The question remains: If any community understands that selling carbon offsets is a rationale for increasing emissions and ultimately threatening the long-term survival of their territory with the consequences of rising temperatures and extreme weather events, will they agree?
In the case of the Matawen reservation, 16 indigenous communities created a political structure to help them win constitutionally recognized land tenure before launching REDD+ projects on their territories.
In four case studies, this was the determining factor for the negative impacts and maximum benefits of carbon reduction projects on the six indigenous peoples who managed the land.
Even so, some interviews with local people revealed that narrow conservation concepts influenced traditional Aboriginal customs and knowledge, which research has found are critical to maintaining biodiversity.
Say ‘No’ to Carbon Offsets, ‘Yes’ to Climate Debt
REDD+ carbon offset projects don’t just sell hot air carbon credits to prove the long-term survival of the fossil fuel model.
They also reproduce historical injustices and asymmetrical power relations that benefit the rich, whites, and Western minorities, while indigenous ethnic communities (mostly in the South) suffer.
It is a logical extension that over the past century and a half a few have benefited from fossil systems while the majority have suffered the worst effects of the climate and ecological crisis.
The rich and Western elites have assumed climate and ecological debts on all those who contributed little to the current crisis but were the first to be affected.
For anyone fighting for a safer climate and global justice, voluntary carbon markets and their use by fossil fuel companies to make fraudulent claims of carbon neutrality must be opposed.
At the same time, the worst climate offenders must be required to pay local communities to protect forests, not as something for somethingnot as carbon offsets, but as climate and ecological debt.
these authors
Nathaniel Rugh and Marcel Llavero-Pasquina are researchers at the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology of the Autonomous University of Barcelona (ICTA-UAB) and members of the Global Environmental Justice Atlas team. X: @nathanielrugh @llaveropasquina
