SPECIAL REPORTS AND PROJECTS
Africa’s Internet Shutdowns Stifling Press Freedom
“The internet for journalism is now like the air you breathe,” said Befeqadu Hailu, an Ethiopian journalist and a member of the Zone 9 blogger collective who was arrested in April 2014 and charged with terrorism. “Without the internet, modern journalism means nothing.”
Yet, the internet is something that journalists in multiple African countries are often forced to do without.
Between May 30 and June 8, the Ethiopian government shut down the country’s internet service for the third time in the last year. These shutdowns have occurred in the context of an ongoing crackdown on the press by authorities, who are currently keeping nine of the 17 journalists recorded on the Committee to Protect Journalists’ (CPJ) 2016 prison census behind bars.
Since the state-run Ethio Telecom holds monopolistic control over both internet and telephone service, the government has the ability to effectively sever its population’s communications on a whim.
“We’ve been through extraordinarily difficult times [during] the ten days of [the] shutdown,” Tsedale Lemma, editor-in-chief of the Addis Standard, told CPJ over WhatsApp.
There was a complete digital blackout during the first few days, after which broadband became available, said Hulu. But since broadband is largely only available for businesses and organizations, many journalists continued to face major challenges. The frequent clampdown on internet access prevents them from securely communicating with sources or publishing on time.
After the third day of the shutdown, Lemma ran between hotels to find internet access. “This is insecure as you are using the business centers there, which is not a secure connection,” Lemma said.
Congo-Brazzaville
On June 25, 2017, Congo-Brazzaville’s internet connection was restored after a 15-day shutdown that was reportedly caused by a mysterious fishing boat that damaged the country’s submarine cables.
While journalists and analysts inside and outside of Congo-Brazzaville speculated over the truthfulness of a boat’s involvement, private mobile companies were able to provide some satellite connection. Nevertheless, journalists remained hampered.
“As long as the internet is not stable, many field, remote reporters or correspondents are facing big problems to send their stories, their work,” a Congo-Brazzaville-based journalist told CPJ on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal.
While online media distributors are effectively blocked from their platforms during internet shutdowns, print and broadcast journalists’ investigative capacities also suffer greatly.
Cameroon
For 93 days between January through April 2017, the Cameroonian government, with cooperation from private mobile operators, cut off internet access in the two western, Anglophone regions of the country.
The government also imposed a suffocating culture of fear through a campaign of arrests and detentions, according to a forthcoming CPJ report on Cameroon’s use of anti-state legislation against journalists. Attacks on the press increased dramatically. At least eight journalists were arrested in connection with their journalism (six of them remain in detention in Yaoundé).
Without the internet, reporting on people’s daily realities became extremely difficult. The media environment in Cameroon was choked. Fear of reprisal, coupled with the internet shutdown, restricted communication between online and offline regions. Coverage of ongoing abuses was stifled.
“Content [was] sent to the [media] station [by] road,” a Cameroonian broadcast journalist based in the English-speaking regions, who requested to remain anonymous for fear of reprisal, told CPJ. “We could therefore not relay timely news items from other areas because we had to wait for them two [to] three days after.”
With such limited information, speculation reigned supreme, the journalist said.
Secure Communications
As governments improve their surveillance tactics, journalists are forced to use a small number of internet-based communication platforms in pursuit of private conversation.
“You pick up your phone to make that call, and you know your phone is tapped, you know there is someone on the other end listening,” Lemma told CPJ. “People don’t [even] feel safe meeting in person.”
“It’s no more a secret that many journalists are actually [wiretapped],” a Congolese journalist told CPJ over WhatsApp on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. “Also, internet is very important for the journalists’ work, since some social media [helps] to bypass [wiretapping] or line monitoring when they need to check or get or publish some facts.”
This perspective is supported by a 2011 report, which highlights how “the November 2009 law on electronic communications and the 2010 decree on identification of [telecommunications] subscribers show that the [Congolese] state has seemingly unlimited power to invade the privacy of its citizens in the interest of security … It seems that the state can access personal data under any pretext without the consent of the individual concerned, who can do nothing to stop it from happening.”
When journalists are too afraid to speak on regular telecommunication lines for fear that their government will intercept the communication and arrive at their door, encrypted internet-based tools like WhatsApp or Signal offer a practical method of communication and information dissemination.
In his 2015 piece titled “Surveillance Forces Journalists to Think and Act Like Spies,” CPJ’s staff technologist Tom Lowenthal explains how important encryption technology is for journalists to connect with sources and write important stories. Without secure communication tools, journalists’ ability to communicate privately with sources becomes limited and self-censorship flourishes.
“Internet shutdowns are particularly censorious in areas where fear of reprisal for critical journalism reigns, and unfortunately, this fear exists in many of the African countries that have experienced internet shutdowns,” said CPJ’s emergencies director María Salazar-Ferro. “Journalists should never feel that their work is putting them or those they communicate with in danger.”
Resisting Shutdowns
Internet shutdowns are on the rise. In 2016, the #KeepItOn campaign documented 56 shutdowns worldwide, including in six African nations. This is up from 15 documented shutdowns in 2015, according to the same data.
Many of these shutdowns occur during electionsand other moments of political tension, when access to information is critical for the public to make informed decisions.
In response, internet freedom advocates have mobilised to compel governments and telecommunications companies to resist shutting off internet access.
In March 2017, the Freedom Online Coalition, which is composed of 30 national governments working to advance internet freedom, expressed deep concern over the “growing trend of intentional state-sponsored disruptions.” They also offered a list of five good practices for governments to avoid shutdowns and seize the economic and social growth brought by the internet.
In Ethiopia, for example, a 30-day shutdown cost the government upwards of US$8.5 million while a separate 15-day shutdown in the Republic of the Congo cost over US$72 million, according to a 2016 Brookings Institute report.
On April 10, 2017, a creative advocacy proposalwas put to the African Network Information Centre (AFRINIC), the body that allocates Africa’s IP addresses, which are identifiers for computers and other devices that connect to the internet. The proposal called for the denial of new IP addresses for one year to countries that order their internet to be shut down.
Though media reports indicate that the proposal was denied as a result of intense opposition from African governments, AFRINIC subsequently issued a statement calling for African governments to “renounce the use of internet shutdowns as a policy tool.”
Internet advocates are also targeting telecommunications companies and internet service providers in an effort to get them to resist government calls for shutdowns.
On February 15, 2017, nearly a month into Cameroon’s internet shutdown, CPJ was among 27 signatories on a letter to three Cameroon telecommunication companies’ CEOs, requesting “support in restoring internet access”.
A month later, United Nations Special Rapporteur on free expression David Kay’s reportto the UN Human Rights Council highlighted the responsibility of private “provider” companies to “ensure that they do not cause, contribute or become complicit in human rights abuses” involved in shutdowns.
“Being able to survive as a journalist in this age without access to the internet — the idea itself is very daunting,” Lemma told CPJ. “But beyond the idea, it’s everything from losing your security [to] not being able to communicate the way you want.”
Respect for press freedom means letting it breathe by enabling journalists to conduct their work. Without internet access journalists cannot publish online, nor can they conduct thorough investigations or talk securely with their sources. To have a free press, African governments need to #KeepItOn.
This post first appeared on Africa Portal and is cross-posted here with permission.
Jonathan Rozen is a researcher with the Committee to Protect Journalists’ Africa Program. He previously worked for the Institute for Security Studies (Africa).
Related posts:
Ugandan internet activist, legal team insists on constitutional interpretation
Uganda declines on Internet freedoms Global Rankings – 2016 Freedom House Internet report
Internet shutdowns cost countries $2.4 billion last year
Government and ISPs dragged to court over Internet shut down
SPECIAL REPORTS AND PROJECTS
How Carbon Markets are Exploiting Marginalised Communities in the Global South Instead of Uplifting them
The billion-dollar fiction of carbon offsets
Carbon markets are turning indigenous farming practices into corporate profit, leaving communities empty-handed.
For Janni Mithula, 42, a resident of the Thotavalasa village in Andhra Pradesh, cultivating the rich, red soil of the valley was her livelihood. On her small patch of land grow with coffee and mango trees, planted over decades with tireless care and ancestral knowledge. Yet, once a source of pride and sustainability, the meaning of these trees has been quietly redefined in ways she never agreed to.
Over a decade ago, more than 333 villages in the valley began receiving free saplings from the Naandi Foundation as part of a large-scale afforestation initiative funded by a French entity, Livelihoods Funds. Unbeknownst to Janni and her neighbours, these trees had transfigured into commodities in a global carbon market, their branches reaching far beyond the valley to corporate boardrooms, their roots tethered not to the soil of sustenance but to the ledger of profit and carbon offsets.
The project claims that it would offset nearly 1.6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent over two decades. On paper, it is a triumph for global climate efforts. In reality, the residents’ lives have seen little improvement. While the sale of carbon credits has reportedly fetched millions of dollars for developers, Janni’s rewards have been minimal: a few saplings, occasional training sessions, and the obligation to care for trees that she no longer fully owns. These invisible transactions pose a grave risk to marginalised communities, who practice sustainable agriculture out of necessity rather than trend.
Also Read | COP29: The $300 billion climate finance deal is an optical illusion
The very systems that could uplift them—carbon markets intended to fund sustainability—end up exploiting their resources without addressing their needs.
Earlier this year, the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) and Down To Earth (DTE) released a joint investigative report on the functioning of the voluntary carbon market in India. The report critically analysed the impacts of the new-age climate solution, its efficacy in reducing carbon emissions, and how it affected the communities involved in the schemes.
The findings highlighted systemic opacity, with key details about the projects, prices, and beneficiaries concealed under confidentiality clauses. Developers also tended to overestimate their emission reductions while failing to provide local communities with meaningful compensation. The report stated that the main beneficiaries of these projects were the project developers, auditors and companies that make a profit out of the carbon trading system.
Carbon markets: The evolution
On December 11, 1997, the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) convened and adopted the Kyoto Protocol with the exigence of the climate crisis bearing down on the world. The Kyoto Protocol, revered for its epochal impact on global climate policy, focused on controlling the emissions of prime anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs). One of the key mechanisms introduced was the “Clean Development Mechanism”, which would allow developed countries to invest in emission reduction projects in developing countries. In exchange, the developed countries would receive certified emission reduction (CER) credits, or carbon credits as they are commonly known.
One carbon credit represents the reduction or removal of one tonne of CO2. Governments create and enforce rules for carbon markets by setting emission caps and monitoring compliance with the help of third-party organisations. For example, the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU-ETS) sets an overall cap on emissions and allocates allowances to industries. A financial penalty system was also put in place to prevent verifiers and consultants from falsifying emissions data. The impact of these renewable projects is usually verified through methods such as satellite imagery or on-site audits.
Companies such as Verra and Gold Standard have seized this opportunity, leading the designing and monitoring of carbon removal projects. Governments and corporations invest in these projects to meet their own net-zero pledges. The companies then issue carbon credits to the investing entity. Verra has stated that they have issued over 1 billion carbon credits, translating into the reduction of 1 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. However, countless case studies and reports have indicated that only a small fraction of these funds reach the local communities practising sustainability.
Article 6 under the Paris Agreement further concretised and regulated the crediting mechanism to enable countries interested in setting up carbon trading schemes. However, the parties failed to reach a consensus regarding the specifics of Article 6 at COP 27 and COP 28. So, climate finance experts and policymakers were very interested in the developments taking place at the COP 29 summit in Baku, Azerbaijan. Unlike its predecessors, the COP 29 summit has seen a diminished attendee list, with major Western political leaders including Joe Biden, Ursula von der Leyen, Olaf Scholz, and Emmanuel Macron failing to make it to the summit due to the increasingly turbulent climate within their own constituencies.
From a post-colonial perspective, carbon markets have been viewed as perpetuating existing global hierarchies; wealthier countries and corporations fail to reduce their emissions and instead shift the burden of mitigation onto developing nations. | Photo Credit: Illustration by Irfan Khan
Sceptics questioned whether this iteration of the summit would lead to any substantial decisions being passed. However, on day-two of the summit, parties reached a landmark consensus on the standards for Article 6.4 and a dynamic mechanism to update them. Mukhtar Babayev, the Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources of Azerbaijan and the COP 29 President, said: “By matching buyers and sellers efficiently, such markets could reduce the cost of implementing Nationally Determined Contributions by 250 billion dollars a year.” He added that cross-border cooperation and compromise would be vital in fighting climate change.
India has positioned itself as an advocate for the Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDCs) group, with Naresh Pal Gangwar, India’s lead negotiator at COP 29, saying, “We are at a crucial juncture in our fight against climate change. What we decide here will enable all of us, particularly those in the Global South, to not only take ambitious mitigation action but also adapt to climate change.”
The COP 29 decision comes in light of the Indian government’s adoption of the amended Energy Conservation Act of 2022, which enabled India to set up its own carbon market. In July 2024, the Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE), an agency under the Ministry of Power, released a detailed report containing the rules and regulations of the Carbon Credit Trading Scheme (CCTS), India’s ambitious plan for a compliance-based carbon market. The BEE has aimed to launch India’s carbon market in 2026.
CSE’s report highlighted the challenges and possible strategies that the Indian carbon market could adopt from other carbon markets around the world. Referring to this report, Parth Kumar, a programme manager at CSE, pointed out how low carbon prices and low market liquidity would be prominent challenges that the nascent Indian market would have to tackle.
The Global South should be concerned
Following the landmark Article 6.4 decision, climate activists called out the supervisory board for the lack of discussion in the decision-making process. “Kicking off COP29 with a backdoor deal on Article 6.4 sets a poor precedent for transparency and proper governance,” said Isa Mulder, a climate finance expert at Carbon Market Watch. The hastily passed decision reflects the pressure that host countries seem to face; a monumental decision must be passed for a COP summit to be touted as a success.
The science behind carbon markets is rooted in the ability of forests, soil, and oceans to act as carbon sinks by capturing atmospheric carbon dioxide. This process is known as carbon sequestration, and it is central to afforestation and soil health restoration projects. However, the long-term efficacy and scalability of these projects have been repeatedly questioned. The normative understanding of carbon markets as a tool to mitigate climate change has also come under scrutiny recently, with many activists calling the market-driven approach disingenuous to the goals of the climate movement.
From a post-colonial perspective, carbon markets have been viewed as perpetuating existing global hierarchies; wealthier countries and corporations fail to reduce their emissions and instead shift the burden of mitigation onto developing nations. Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò, Professor of Philosophy at Georgetown University, said, “Climate colonialism is the deepening or expansion of foreign domination through climate initiatives that exploit poorer nations’ resources or otherwise compromises their sovereignty.” Moreover, the effects of climate change disproportionately fall on the shoulders of marginalised communities in the Global South, even though industrialised nations historically produce the bulk of emissions.
There have also been doubts surrounding the claiming process of carbon credits and whether the buyer country or the country where the project is set can count the project towards its own Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Provisions under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement state that countries cannot use any emission reductions sold to another company or country towards their own emissions targets. However, this has become a widespread issue plaguing carbon markets. The EU has recently been criticised for counting carbon credits sold to corporations under the Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF) towards the EU’s own NDC targets. This has led to concerns over the overestimation of the impact of mission reduction projects.
Also Read | India needs climate justice, not just targets
Carbon offset projects, additionally, alienate local communities from their land as the idea of ownership and stewardship becomes muddled with corporate plans on optimally utilising the land for these projects. For example, in 2014, Green Resources, a Norwegian company, leased more than 10,000 hectares of land in Uganda, with additional land being leased in Mozambique and Tanzania. This land was used as a part of afforestation projects to practise sustainability and alleviate poverty in the area. However, interviews conducted with local Ugandan villagers revealed that the project forcibly evicted the local population without delivering its promises to improve access to health and education for the community. These concerns highlighted how the burden of adopting sustainable practices is placed on marginalised communities.
While carbon markets are rightfully criticised, they remain a key piece of the global climate adaptation puzzle. Addressing the issues surrounding transparency and equitable benefit-sharing with local communities could lead to carbon markets having a positive impact on climate change. The system must ensure that larger corporations and countries do not merely export their emissions, but instead implement measures to reduce their own emissions over time. It is also imperative to explore other innovative strategies such as circular economy approaches and nature-based solutions that are more localised, offering hope for a just and sustainable future.
Adithya Santhosh Kumar is currently pursuing a Master’s in Engineering and Policy Analysis at the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands.
Source: frontline.thehindu.com
Related posts:
A new destructive business: Carbon credits from tree plantations
East Africa poised to monitor carbon emission
The Rush for Carbon Concessions: More Land Theft and Deforestation
Uganda: Local communities claim they are not benefiting from Green Resources’ subsidiary’s carbon credit initiative; incl. company’s comments
DEFENDING LAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS
Statement: The Energy Sector Strategy 2024–2028 Must Mark the End of the EBRD’s Support to Fossil Fuels
Related posts:
Breaking: over 350,000 acres of land were grabbed during Witness Radio – Uganda’s seven months ban.
EBRD launches new agribusiness strategy
30 civil society organizations have written to the World Bank Group demanding to publicly disclose the Africa Energy Approach paper.
Over 600 million Africans lack electricity despite huge renewable energy potential
- 45% of Louis Dreyfus Company, with its massive land holdings in Latin America, growing sugarcane, citrus, rice and coffee;
- a majority stake in Unifrutti, with 15,000 ha of fruit farms in Chile, Ecuador, Argentina, Philippines, Spain, Italy and South Africa; and
- Al Dahra, a large agribusiness conglomerate controlling and cultivating 118,315 ha of farmland in Romania, Spain, Serbia, Morocco, Egypt, Namibia and the US.
|
Sovereign wealth funds invested in farmland/food/agriculture (2023)
|
|||
|
Country
|
Fund
|
Est.
|
AUM (US$bn)
|
|
China
|
CIC
|
2007
|
1351
|
|
Norway
|
NBIM
|
1997
|
1145
|
|
UAE – Abu Dhabi
|
ADIA
|
1967
|
993
|
|
Kuwait
|
KIA
|
1953
|
769
|
|
Saudi Arabia
|
PIF
|
1971
|
620
|
|
China
|
NSSF
|
2000
|
474
|
|
Qatar
|
QIA
|
2005
|
450
|
|
UAE – Dubai
|
ICD
|
2006
|
300
|
|
Singapore
|
Temasek
|
1974
|
298
|
|
UAE – Abu Dhabi
|
Mubadala
|
2002
|
284
|
|
UAE – Abu Dhabi
|
ADQ
|
2018
|
157
|
|
Australia
|
Future Fund
|
2006
|
157
|
|
Iran
|
NDFI
|
2011
|
139
|
|
UAE
|
EIA
|
2007
|
91
|
|
USA – AK
|
Alaska PFC
|
1976
|
73
|
|
Australia – QLD
|
QIC
|
1991
|
67
|
|
USA – TX
|
UTIMCO
|
1876
|
64
|
|
USA – TX
|
Texas PSF
|
1854
|
56
|
|
Brunei
|
BIA
|
1983
|
55
|
|
France
|
Bpifrance
|
2008
|
50
|
|
UAE – Dubai
|
Dubai World
|
2005
|
42
|
|
Oman
|
OIA
|
2020
|
42
|
|
USA – NM
|
New Mexico SIC
|
1958
|
37
|
|
Malaysia
|
Khazanah
|
1993
|
31
|
|
Russia
|
RDIF
|
2011
|
28
|
|
Turkey
|
TVF
|
2017
|
22
|
|
Bahrain
|
Mumtalakat
|
2006
|
19
|
|
Ireland
|
ISIF
|
2014
|
16
|
|
Canada – SK
|
SK CIC
|
1947
|
16
|
|
Italy
|
CDP Equity
|
2011
|
13
|
|
China
|
CADF
|
2007
|
10
|
|
Indonesia
|
INA
|
2020
|
6
|
|
India
|
NIIF
|
2015
|
4
|
|
Spain
|
COFIDES
|
1988
|
4
|
|
Nigeria
|
NSIA
|
2011
|
3
|
|
Angola
|
FSDEA
|
2012
|
3
|
|
Egypt
|
TSFE
|
2018
|
2
|
|
Vietnam
|
SCIC
|
2006
|
2
|
|
Gabon
|
FGIS
|
2012
|
2
|
|
Morocco
|
Ithmar Capital
|
2011
|
2
|
|
Palestine
|
PIF
|
2003
|
1
|
|
Bolivia
|
FINPRO
|
2015
|
0,4
|
|
AUM (assets under management) figures from Global SWF, January 2023
|
|||
|
Engagement in food/farmland/agriculture assessed by GRAIN
|
|||
Related posts:
La Via Campesina calls on States to exit the WTO and to create a new framework based on food sovereignty
The United Nations Food Systems Summit is a corporate food summit —not a “people’s” food summit
Food Sovereignty: A Manifesto for the Future of Our Planet
CORPORATE AGRIBUSINESS GIANTS SWIM IN WEALTH AS MORE POOR PEOPLE GO HUNGRY AMID THE BITING COVID PANDEMIC.
Urgent Call for Conditionalities on New IFC and EBRD Loan to Oyu Tolgoi Mine
COP16 in Riyadh: World Leaders Commit $12.15B to Combat Land Degradation and Drought
Church of Uganda’s call to end land grabbing is timely and re-enforces earlier calls to investigate quack investors and their agents fueling the problem.
Op-Ed | A Missing Investment Strategy: Climate Resilience Hides in Local Food Markets
A bail application for the 15 EACOP activists failed to take off, and they were remanded back to Prison.
Breaking: Buganda Road Court grants bail to 15 stop EACOP activists after 30 days in prison.
Witness Radio Statement on the International Human Rights Day 2024: A call to the government of Uganda to protect Land and Environmental Rights Defenders and Communities affected by irresponsible land-based investments in Uganda.
UNCCD COP16: NGOs issue a stark warning and call for urgent actions to deal with the escalating threats of desertification, land degradation, and drought.
Innovative Finance from Canada projects positive impact on local communities.
Over 5000 Indigenous Communities evicted in Kiryandongo District
Petition To Land Inquiry Commission Over Human Rights In Kiryandongo District
Invisible victims of Uganda Land Grabs
-
DEFENDING LAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS2 weeks agoBreaking: Buganda Road Court grants bail to 15 stop EACOP activists after 30 days in prison.
-
STATEMENTS2 weeks agoWitness Radio Statement on the International Human Rights Day 2024: A call to the government of Uganda to protect Land and Environmental Rights Defenders and Communities affected by irresponsible land-based investments in Uganda.
-
DEFENDING LAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS2 weeks agoBreaking: The Bail Application for the 15 EACOP Activists flops for the second time, as the trial magistrate is reported to have been transferred.
-
DEFENDING LAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS2 weeks ago
Buganda Road Court will hear a bail application for 15 EACOP activists today.
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK2 weeks agoHearing of a case against a 72-year-old woman for disobeying NEMA orders is kicking off today..
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK2 weeks agoThree-quarters of Earth’s land became permanently drier in last three decades: UN
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK1 week agoChurch of Uganda’s call to end land grabbing is timely and re-enforces earlier calls to investigate quack investors and their agents fueling the problem.
-
SPECIAL REPORTS AND PROJECTS2 weeks agoHow Carbon Markets are Exploiting Marginalised Communities in the Global South Instead of Uplifting them