Connect with us

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Carbon Markets Are Not the Solution: The Failed Relaunch of Emission Trading and the Clean Development Mechanism

Published

on

In light of the growing number of cold and hot wars around the world, attention to climate issues has noticeably declined, at least in Germany. Meanwhile, supposed solutions, such as carbon emission trading and the Clean Development Mechanism, continue to be promoted. As Maria Neuhauss argues, this is a bluff with far-reaching consequences.

There was more bad news in January 2025: The European Earth observation program Copernicus and the World Meteorological Organization reported that the global average temperature in 2024 was 1.6 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. This marked the first time the average global temperature exceeded the 1.5-degree target established in the Paris Climate Agreement.

In light of the growing number of crises and conflict hotspots around the world, attention to climate issues has noticeably declined, at least in Germany. While 1.4 million people demonstrated for more climate protection in Germany in September 2019, according to Fridays for Future, it is now almost impossible to speak of a climate movement. The catalyst for the third German ‘movement cycle’ was undoubtedly the rebranding of Last Generation in December 2024. The group had been decimated by state repression and media agitation in the preceding months. The U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement at the beginning of this year made it clear that defenders of the fossil fuel status quo have gained momentum and intend to achieve their goals without compromise. However, as global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise and the material world follows its own rules, the problem of global warming will likely resurface in the collective consciousness in the foreseeable future. Whether through heat waves, extreme weather events, water shortages, or forest fires. The question is whether and what new answers and approaches a reinvigorated climate movement will develop if it does not limit itself to ‘solidarity prepping’ and actually wants to influence the course of events.

Central to this is not only resolute resistance against fossil inertia forces, but also testing the actions of liberal actors. Although they acknowledge the problem of climate change and claim to want to solve it, the measures they take are inadequate at best or, at worst, create new profit opportunities for the industries that must be phased out. This is far from a comprehensive solution to the ecological crisis, which encompasses more than just climate change. Emission trading and the associated offset mechanisms that are part of the international climate negotiations are one example that illustrates this well.

‘Climate math’ of flexible mechanisms

Emission trading is based on the idea that greenhouse gas emissions are still possible but must be justified with corresponding ‘pollution rights.’ The number of certificates is limited and should decrease over time to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Emission trading provides fundamental flexibility by allowing certificates to be bought and sold. Ultimately, this is intended to achieve the most cost-efficient climate protection possible because emission-reducing measures are expected to be implemented first where they can be done quickly and cheaply. This allows one to profit from selling unused emission allowances to other actors who initially shy away from such measures. These actors must buy the allowances until the increased prices resulting from the shortage make emission-reducing measures unavoidable. At least, that’s the theory.

Emission trading is closely linked to the concept of climate neutrality, which plays a central role in climate policy. Greenhouse gas emissions are offset by preventing emissions, using natural carbon sinks, or removing CO2 from the atmosphere. The trick to this ‘climate math’ is that, as long as emissions are compensated for, they do not count, even if greenhouse gases continue to be released into the air. These compensation measures are called ‘offsets.’

The idea that not all emissions must be reduced but can, in principle, be bought out of this obligation is based on the global inequalities that have developed historically and that fundamentally structured the first global climate agreement, the Kyoto Protocol of 1997. In line with the ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ approach, the protocol only required industrialized countries to reduce emissions because they were mainly responsible for the high concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However, under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), industrialized countries could partially buy their way out of this responsibility by financing emissions-reduction measures in developing and emerging countries. The CDM has therefore been described as a modern “indulgence trade” (Altvater & Brunnengräber, 2008). This allowed industrialized countries to reconcile their energy production methods with the need for climate protection while outsourcing conflicts over the energy transition, such as land use, to the Global South (Bauriedl, 2016).

Social and environmental shortcomings of the CDM

From a climate protection perspective, however, it only makes sense to include emission reductions in developing and emerging countries in the emissions balance of industrialized countries if the investments actually help reduce emissions – that is, if the projects would not have been realized without investments from the Global North. Conversely, if projects under the CDM are not additional, such as if a dam would have been built without investments from the Global North, companies in industrialized countries can claim emission credits without actually helping to reduce emissions. This is because the emissions would have been avoided anyway. This would result in an overall increase in emissions.

In fact, the additionality of many projects financed under the CDM has been questioned over the years (Öko-Institut, 2016). However, less attention has been paid to the fact that CDM projects have repeatedly led to the displacement of local people and land grabbing. For example, a reforestation project in the Kachung Central Forest Reserve in Uganda displaced many neighboring villagers who used to farm and graze their cattle there. Plagued by food insecurity, hunger, and poverty, the population was denied access to the land when CDM-approved plantations were established, further worsening their situation. The monoculture plantations also had negative ecological consequences (Carbon Market Watch, 2018). Thus, the CDM perpetuated colonial conditions on several levels. The mechanism ended with the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol in 2020. However, credits issued beforehand can still be used under the Paris Climate Agreement.

Price incentives instead of bans

A critical review of emission trading is also urgently needed. It is failing as a suitable means of climate protection on several levels. For example, in the case of the European Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), the continued generous allocation of free certificates, particularly to energy-intensive industries, protects those responsible for high CO₂ emissions from strict requirements. Additionally, the emission trading approach suffers from the fact that it is unclear whether, or to what extent, the price of emissions certificates influences investment decisions in favor of climate protection. According to various studies, the price would need to be between EUR 140 and 6,000 per ton of CO₂ to achieve the 1.5-degree target (IPCC, 2018).

However, local industry is already complaining about excessively high electricity prices (the average certificate price in 2024 was €65 per ton of CO₂), causing the government to worry about the location’s attractiveness. Given this, can we really expect politicians to force energy-intensive industries to do more to protect the climate with much higher certificate prices? Ultimately, this reveals a fundamental flaw in emission trading: its indirect effect. Instead of using targets and bans, the idea is to persuade companies to cut emissions through price incentives. However, this approach puts climate protection in the hands of actors who primarily follow the profit motive and do not necessarily translate the price signal into climate protection measures. This explains why companies enrich themselves from emission trading and the Clean Development Mechanism wherever possible (CE Delft, 2021).

For those who design and control emission trading systems, the aforementioned criticisms are merely one reason to continue supporting and refining the chosen method. This is also true for the EU, which, after a period during which emission trading was considered ineffective due to low prices, reinvigorated the system at the end of the 2010s. For instance, the EU introduced the market stability reserve. The goal is to maintain public confidence in the effectiveness of this instrument because it is the global climate protection tool. However, evaluations of its effectiveness are rare and provide little cause for optimism. According to an evaluation of various studies, the EU ETS achieves only 0 to 1.5% emission reductions per year (Green, 2021).

History and responsibility are being erased

This makes the ongoing negotiations at UN climate conferences concerning the implementation of global emission trading and a new Clean Development Mechanism all the more critical. In addition to the question of how financially weak countries will be compensated for climate-related damage and losses, the annual COPs primarily address Article 6 of the Paris Climate Agreement. Article 6 regulates international cooperation, i.e., the extent to which a country can count mitigation measures or emission avoidance elsewhere in its climate balance. Last year’s COP29 in Baku further advanced the operationalization of this article. Based on this, old CDM projects can now be transferred to the new Sustainable Development Mechanism under certain conditions. However, the first project to clear this hurdle reportedly reported emission reductions up to 26 times higher than expected based on scientific evaluation (Mulder, 2025).

Despite urgent warnings, world climate conferences seem determined to repeat past mistakes. The focus is on profit. As Tamra Gilbertson summed up in an interview with Chris Lang, the climate is the last priority. After all, trade processes will incur deductions in the future that will flow into the international adaptation fund. However, according to Gilbertson, this is also due to the fact that the climate conferences have failed to reach viable agreements on financing climate damage and adaptation measures in poorer countries thus far. Instead, emission trading is expected to deliver the necessary funds. “This is where common but differentiated responsibilities are eradicated. History and responsibility are erased, and capitalism in the form of carbon markets takes its place” (Lang, 2024).

While these processes are difficult for the public to understand, the escalating climate crisis requires critical attention more than ever. The problems associated with emission trading and the Clean Development Mechanism urgently need to be exposed as distractions from the real task at hand: rapidly phasing out fossil fuels.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

“We are facing increased violent land dispossessions and climate injustices” – African women.

Published

on

By the Witness Radio Team

 

Stories of displacement, land loss, and resilience filled the room as 45 women from six African countries gathered for the East Africa Women’s Land and Climate Justice Convergence in Nairobi, organized to raise awareness and explore resistance strategies against land dispossession and climate injustice.

 

Representing communities from Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Zimbabwe, and South Africa, the women came together not only to learn but also to speak, listen, heal, and feel the weight of their struggles, resisting destructive extractive projects and reclaiming what belongs to them, despite the immense impacts they have endured.

 

Africa is often described as having vast unused or underutilized land. This narrative has attracted investors, especially from the Global North, into large-scale industrial agriculture and other land-based investments. However, a 2025 report by the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA), PLAAS, and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy challenged this claim, showing that such narratives have fueled large-scale land grabs, ecological destruction, and community dispossession across the continent.

 

In Uganda, the land eviction crisis has intensified due to increasing land-based investments that have dispossessed local communities with impunity, with oil development activities among them. According to human rights groups, this has led to more than 100,000 people in Uganda and Tanzania permanently losing their land to make way for the pipeline and related projects.

 

Jenniffer Kiiza, a resident of Hoima, is among those whose land was taken for oil development.

 

“The project has had severe negative impacts, especially on vulnerable groups like women,” she said, highlighting how delayed compensation, gender-based violence, and food insecurity disproportionately affect women and their families.

 

“We face dispossession, and sadly, we are paid very little money, which comes late and is no longer enough to buy land elsewhere. Hunger and malnutrition in adults and babies have increased, and this is affecting us as women and our families.” Kiiza added.

 

Kiiza has continued to speak out despite growing repression against dissent, advocating for justice for her community, especially women, even as opposing such mega-projects comes at a high cost.

 

“These developments have caused hunger, increased gender-based violence, family breakdowns, school dropouts, and early marriages. There has also been a rise in prostitution, as women struggle to provide for their children after losing their land.” She added.

 

Meanwhile, in Uganda alone, the Uganda Police’s Annual Crimes Report, 2025, released early April, recorded 663 cases of land fraud, an indicator of the country’s escalating land crisis.

 

In Zimbabwe’s Midlands province, particularly in Shurugwi, communities are facing similar challenges linked to mining activities, including land dispossession and environmental harm.

Jeyche Belenia, a women’s rights defender from a community affected by Unki Mine, shared her experience during the convergence.

 

“We are facing many challenges from the miners. Chinese investors are coming into our area and evicting us. They tell us to leave, and if we refuse, they come with bulldozers and destroy everything, including our homes. We are left with no shelter and nowhere to go,” she said.

She added that abandoned open pits left by mining companies have become deadly hazards.

 

“When it rains, the pits fill with water. Our livestock fall into them, and even our children have fallen in. We are losing both animals and lives, and the danger is ever-present,” She added.

 

Communities in Zimbabwe also report water pollution from mining activities, which threatens their health and livelihoods. “The water we use is our source of livelihood, serving domestic needs, drinking, and our animals. However, after consuming it, we have experienced illnesses like cholera, and pregnant women face severe complications,” she added.

 

Her revelations echo concerns raised at the 2025 Zimbabwe Alternative Mining Indaba (ZAMI). The 14th edition of the Indaba, convened by the Zimbabwe Environmental Law Organization (ZELO) and partners in September 2025, highlighted multiple challenges within a sector that contributes about 12% to 13.3% of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

 

In its December 2025 communiqué, ZAMI noted that unsustainable resource extraction is driving widespread environmental damage, including water pollution, habitat loss, soil degradation, and deforestation.

 

It further pointed to displacement, inadequate compensation, and the absence of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), particularly affecting marginalized communities whose exclusion from governance processes has resulted in violence, disempowerment, and the entrenchment of poverty in resource-rich areas, worsened by weak oversight that has enabled environmental violations and illicit financial flows.

 

Amid these challenges affecting their communities, the women shared, the convergence concluded with a renewed sense of solidarity, forming a network of resilient women committed to defending Africa’s commons—land, forests, water, and cultural systems—now under increasing threat.

 

According to the organizers, the meeting was particularly significant in creating a platform for women to share lived realities that are often excluded from formal land governance discussions. Participants exchanged insights on the challenges they face and identified collective strategies to strengthen their land rights.

 

The convergence brought together women to reflect on their experiences with customary and communal land tenure systems. We will continue to build on this knowledge and strengthen solidarity plans at both national and regional levels with the women,” WoMin’s Sizaltina Cutaia told Witness Radio.

 

Participants described the gathering as a transformative learning space that not only exposed shared struggles but also equipped them with the skills and knowledge to defend their rights collectively.

 

“And a message I can give to a woman in the struggle is to keep fighting for her goal. She should not give up, but continue until she achieves what she wants. This cuts across countries and brings us together through networking. When we unite as women, we realize we share one goal—as mothers in our communities and countries—because land is our motherland,” said Sara Possass from the Kogiya Community.

 

Despite powerful companies taking over their land, women defenders say they are determined to continue resisting and reclaim what is rightfully theirs.

 

“We are fighting back so that we can reclaim our natural resources, including land and water. Many women are facing serious health challenges, including stress and stroke, as a result of these struggles. But we are not going back. We are fighting to reclaim our commons through demonstrations, cultural resistance, and petitions led by marginalized communities.” Jeyche mentioned.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Kassanda businessmen accused of a second attempt to grab an 86-year-old farmer’s land despite court orders.

Published

on

Bacumikire’s son stands on their land in Kassanda District, allegedly fenced off by businessmen in a renewed attempt to grab the entire land.

By the Witness Radio team.

Kassanda-Uganda. Three businessmen in Kassanda District are accused of forcefully taking over land belonging to an 86-year-old resident of Kagasa village, Kiteredde Sub-county, Kassanda District, in what appears to be a second attempt to grab his entire land.

The accused, Mwesigye George, Busesire Geoffrey, and Eric Karamba Saizi, allegedly fenced off land belonging to Mr. Fred Bacumikire, depriving him of access to his farmland and grazing areas, which are his primary source of livelihood.

According to the family, this is not the first time the group has targeted the older man’s land. In 2022, two of the accused, Busesire Geoffrey and Eric Karamba Saizi, allegedly seized the entire land and wanted to evict Mr. Bacumikire, allocating themselves approximately 280 acres (113.312 ha) of Bacumikire’s land. The encroachment significantly reduced his access to the property and triggered a legal battle in which he sought full access to the property.

“They entered the whole land of about 640 acres (258.99 ha) forcefully and wanted to evict him, leaving him with only two acres,” said Mr. Mwebesa Richard, Bacumikire’s lawyer.

According to family members who spoke to Witness Radio, Mr. Bacumikire purchased the

land in 1995 from Samuel Ssekamwa under a running lease, covering approximately 640 acres. Before the sale, Ssekamwa had acquired the land from the original owner in 1972 under a 99-year lease.

“We have lived on this land since 1995, when Mzee bought it peacefully from Mr. Ssekamwa. But when Busesire and his accomplices surfaced, everything changed, and peace was lost,” Mr. Kazuga Lazarus, the eldest son of Bacumikire, said.

Kazuga added that the disputed land is located in Block 427, Plot 59, Kagasa Village, and measures approximately 640 acres.

In response to the land grab, Bacumikire, through his lawyer, filed a case at the Mubende High Court, seeking protection against eviction. The court issued an order restraining the defendants from evicting him, but the current enforceability of this order remains unclear, raising questions about legal protection for landowners.

“We went to court, I explained to the court, and they gave us an administrative order, ordering them not to evict Mr. Bacumikire.” His lawyer further added.

The lawyer says that the situation reportedly changed when a new judge temporarily took over the matter. Justice Karemani, who was holding brief for another judge, set aside the earlier court order under circumstances that the legal team questions.

According to Mr. Mwebesa, this development allowed the defendants to renew their attempts to evict the plaintiff, having already gained physical possession of 280 acres of the older man’s land. At the time, Mwesigye George owned approximately 180 acres, while Busesire Geoffrey owned about 100 acres.

Bacumikire’s legal team then appealed to the Court of Appeal in Kampala to restrain the defendants from violating the previous order.

“When the order was violated, I ran to the Court of Appeal specifically to challenge the setting aside of that order and to have it reinstated. So, when we went to the Court of Appeal, that’s now, we consented that Mr. Bacumikire and the defendants must remain on the land.” The lawyer further revealed

According to Court documents seen by Witness Radio, the deputy registrar of the Court of Appeal, Jane Mugala, issued a consent order on 3rd October 2024 ordering Mwesigye George (1st respondent) to retain physical possession of 180 acres of the land, and Busesire Geofrey (2nd respondent) to retain approximately 100 acres in the area. And that the remaining part of the land was to be left to Bacumikire. The court also ordered the complainant (Bacumikire) to be given reasonable access to a water point at Lake Wamala for his cattle.

Despite this agreement, the family now accuses the same individuals- Mwesigye George, Busesire Geoffrey, and Eric Karamba Saizi- of returning to seize the remaining land, marking what they have described as a second land grab attempt.

“They have come back again and fenced off all the land we were left with, even before the High Court case is concluded,” said Kazuga Lazarus, Bacumikire’s son, in an interview with Witness Radio, emphasizing the ongoing distress and urging authorities to intervene in what he described as an abuse of power and impunity.

This latest development, according to the family, has cut the older man and his family off from his land and left his household in distress, with reports that several of his cattle have died.

“They have fenced off the entire land, blocked access to water sources, and denied us the use of our own property. They are acting above the law, evicting us despite valid court orders and clear proof of ownership. This is land my father bought in 1995,” he said, underscoring the importance of legal protections for landowners.

He added that the situation has worsened, with four cattle already dead. He said the animals have been left without water and grazing land for a long time, a situation he blames on the alleged land grabbers.

The chairperson of Lwamugenyi village, Jamil Kibuuka, affirms that the consent order clearly states that Mwesigye and Busesire are to remain on part of the land. At the same time, the rest is used by Bacumikire. He, however, wonders why the accused abandoned this order and chose to violate it instead.

Tamale Elidadi, a resident of Kagasa village, urged authorities and stakeholders to intervene and support Bacumikire’s pursuit of justice.

“He is an old man, and these grabbers are using money and influence to buy off whoever

supports Bacumikire. He needs to be supported because his cattle are perishing due to inadequate water and pasture, yet he acquired all the land with his hard-earned money.” Mr. Tamale added.

Should the land grab succeed, the older man will be evicted from his land and left with no place to call home, highlighting the severe consequences of the ongoing violations for his family and community.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

East African women unite and meet in Nairobi to develop strategies to protect communal tenure systems and collectively resist false climate solutions.

Published

on

By the Witness Radio team.

Women in East Africa are on the front lines of land and climate struggles against harmful extractive investments, land grabs, and land giveaways that have not only damaged their livelihoods but also continued to harm the environment.

In Tanzania’s Manyara and Arusha regions, Maasai pastoralists face environmental disasters and land conflicts driven by encroachment and land degradation.

Paulina Peter, a Community Development Officer with the KINNAPA Development Program in Kiteto District, Tanzania, has witnessed these changes firsthand.

“Deforestation for agriculture is a major challenge. Some pastoralists are diversifying into crop farming, which affects environmental conservation. At the same time, population growth and land degradation are driving migration into pastoralist areas.” She explains, in an interview with Witness Radio

These pressures are not only ecological, but they are also fueling conflict. According to Paulina, disputes have emerged between local communities and incoming agriculturalists seeking access to community lands, sometimes escalating into legal battles.

To address these challenges, KINNAPA is supporting pastoralist communities through land rights awareness, environmental education, and the development of village land use plans. These initiatives, particularly the formalization of shared rangelands, have helped reduce conflict and promote more sustainable land use.

While Tanzanian communities struggle with gradual encroachment, the story of the Mosopisyek of Benet Indigenous community in Eastern Uganda reflects a more abrupt and violent history of land loss, which has had an overwhelming impact on thousands of local communities for decades.

The Benet Indigenous community in Uganda lost its ancestral land in 1993 when it was designated as a national park, causing decades of displacement and hardship.

“In 1993, the government evicted hundreds of people without compensation. During the initial giveaway of our land, we were not consulted to give consent,” Chelangat Scovia, a women’s leader of the Mosopisyek of Benet Indigenous community, told Witness Radio, recalling the trauma of forced evictions from their ancestral lands on Mount Elgon.

The government has promised to resettle them, but the affected communities in Sebei still await justice after more than 30 years, underscoring their resilience.

Following the 1993 evictions, thousands were left in temporary settlements without adequate land or support. In 2008, again, the government further displaced more than 170 families and destroyed homes in a violent eviction.

Today, many Benet remain landless, surviving through casual labor or relying on aid, while continuing to face harassment when they attempt to access their ancestral lands for grazing or cultural practices.

Despite these challenges affecting their communities, women like Paulina and Chelangat are not only victims but also inspiring leaders driving efforts to defend and reclaim the commons.

Both are attending the East Africa Women’s Land and Climate Justice Convergence in Nairobi, where grassroots women leaders, activists, and organizations from Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania have gathered from April 26 to May 1 to confront land dispossession, extractivism, and false climate solutions.

The convergence comes at a critical moment when Africa’s commons—land, forests, water, and cultural systems—are under growing threat. Most land on the continent is held under communal tenure systems that sustain rural populations. However, weak legal protections continue to expose these systems to state control, corporate exploitation, and large-scale land grabs.

While communal systems are vital, they are also shaped by deeply entrenched patriarchal norms. Women, despite being the backbone of food production, often access land through male relatives. This leaves them particularly vulnerable during moments of crisis such as widowhood, divorce, or family disputes.

The convergence seeks to challenge this model by advancing a different vision, one that strengthens, rather than dismantles, the commons while centering women’s leadership.

The convergence aims to build collective strategies to protect communal lands and resist extractive industries and false climate solutions, empowering communities to act together.

“The convergence will also explore the new threats to the commons in the form of mega ‘green’ energy and mining projects, and the false solutions to the climate crisis, such as carbon capture and storage, as well as REDD+, typically involving the capturing and privatization of land, forests, and water bodies. We will also explore the question of climate debt and how it is deeply interlinked with the continued commodification of the commons,” Says Womin in its press release.

Bringing together 35 to 45 participants, primarily women living under communal tenure systems, the convergence includes farmers, fisherfolk, pastoralists, indigenous women, and activists resisting extractive projects. Organized by Womin in partnership with allied organizations, the gathering runs until May 1.

Witness Radio will continue to provide updates on all developments from the convergence.

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter