UAE’s Carbon Offset Agreements Seen as Colonial Influence in Africa

Environmental concerns have intensified as the UAE undertakes extensive carbon offset projects across African territories, which many observers view as neocolonialism.

These deals encompass vast stretches of African forests, exceeding the size of Italy, and are part of large-scale carbon offset agreements.

The initiatives are being spearheaded by Blue Carbon, a seven-year-old Emirati company led by Sheikh Ahmed Dalmouk Al Maktoum, a relatively obscure member of Dubai’s royal family.

These agreements involve up to 20 percent of the land in countries such as Zambia, Kenya, Tanzania, and Liberia. However, they have sparked strong opposition from environmental advocacy groups, who express concern over the “potential competition for Africa” and the exploitation of its natural resources.

In October 2023, Blue Carbon finalized its most contentious deal yet, covering 24.5 million hectares of African forest.

Environmental groups claim that the Kenyan government approved the deal without consulting the local communities whose lands are being used for carbon offset projects. The specifics, including financial details, remain undisclosed, adding to the controversy.

At the same time, the Ogiek community has filed a lawsuit against the Kenyan government, accusing it of unlawfully displacing hunter-gatherers from their ancestral lands to make way for carbon offset projects, according to human rights lawyers. Hundreds of Ogiek members are currently facing eviction from the Mau Forest.

Ogiek leader Daniel Kube alleged that armed forest rangers have been using axes and hammers to destroy and burn their homes.

Despite having no prior experience in conservation, Sheikh Ahmed has played a central role in advancing these deals.

Kube condemned the actions as barbaric and cruel, accusing the government of valuing profit over human rights.

In response to the evictions, the Kenyan government has defended its actions as essential for environmental protection. Nonetheless, Dr. Justin Kenrick of the Forest People Program has highlighted the role of carbon credits and offsets in supporting these measures.

In February of the previous year, Blue Carbon and Zambia’s Ministry of Green Economy and Environment signed a contentious memorandum of understanding.

The alleged agreement, which focuses on decarbonization efforts in the forest sector, is said to be in line with Article 6 of the 2015 Paris Agreement.

However, climate change activists have criticized the deal as questionable, pointing out that it lacks detailed information on the specific strategies Blue Carbon plans to apply to 8 million hectares of forest land in Zambia.

While the Zambian government and the UAE have promoted the deal as a significant partnership, experts have criticized it for being vague and lacking robust protections for Zambia’s unique natural resources, particularly its extensive forests, which serve as crucial “carbon sinks.”

Additionally, environmental groups interviewed by LifeGate revealed that they were not consulted about the deal and do not know which specific forests the Zambian government intends to include in the agreement.

In contrast, Alexandra Benjamin, a forest governance activist with the NGO FERN, raised concerns about Blue Carbon’s acquisition of large tracts of African land. She noted that this poses a risk to the lands on which millions of vulnerable communities rely for their livelihoods.

At the previous COP28, Benjamin called on negotiators to label carbon deals as “land grabs” and emphasized the necessity of obtaining informed consent from forest communities before finalizing any agreements.

In Liberia, NGOs are scrutinizing how the potential deal might impact community land rights and access to crucial forests that are essential for local livelihoods.

David Obora, founding director of Cordeo East Africa and chair of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, has raised concerns about the risks of exclusivity. He warns that such deals could lead to communities being denied access to and rights over their forests.

Bernard Kioko Ndaka, a conservationist with the World Green Economy Organization in Kenya, has vehemently criticized Blue Carbon’s land deals with African nations, calling them “a new form of colonization of African lands.”

He highlighted that many host communities were not consulted before their governments approved these deals, comparing the situation to the historical imperial land seizures by European powers in the 19th century.

“Consider a private company in Dubai, posing as a climate champion, poised to control vast regions of sub-Saharan Africa,” he remarked.

Ndaka also speculated that the company might use this control to sell carbon credits to major polluters while potentially exploiting African mineral resources.

Ndaka contends that a carbon trading system enables major polluting countries like the US, UK, Saudi Arabia, and China to buy emissions reductions or removals from developing countries as offsets to meet their own emissions targets.

Malcolm Fabiyi, a dedicated advocate for clean biotechnology and climate solutions, poses critical questions about the potential pricing of carbon credits in Africa. He emphasizes the need for fairness, equality, and justice, noting the significant gap between current forest carbon prices and the economic value of alternative land uses.

Fabiyi emphasized the need for developers to pay a fair price for African forest projects to prevent perpetuating historical inequalities and avoid the adverse effects of colonial-like exploitation.

The African land deals made by Blue Carbon, under the leadership of Sheikh Ahmed Dalmouk Al Maktoum, are facing intense criticism for their potential to exploit the environment. These agreements, which cover up to twenty percent of countries like Zambia, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, and Liberia, have sparked concerns about modern conflicts over African lands and possible new forms of colonialism. Unfortunately, African leaders continue to endorse these deals.

If these actions are not addressed, Africa’s rich biodiversity, community rights, and efforts to combat climate change will remain under threat, leaving the continent at risk.