NGO WORK
Development banks have no business financing agribusiness
Published
3 years agoon
On the eve of an annual gathering of public development banks in Rome, 280 groups from 70 countries have signed a letter slamming them for bankrolling the expansion of industrial agriculture, environmental destruction and corporate control of the food system. The signatories affirm only fully public and accountable funding mechanisms based on people’s actual needs can achieve real solutions to the global food crisis.
Over 450 Public Development Banks (PDBs) from around the world are gathering in Rome from 19 to 20 October 2021 for a second international summit, dubbed Finance in Common. During the first summit in Paris in 2020, over 80 civil-society organizations published a joint statement demanding that the PDBs stop funding agribusiness companies and projects that take land and natural resources away from local communities. This year, however, PDBs have made agriculture and agribusiness the priority of their second summit. This is of serious concern for the undersigned groups as PDBs have a long track-record of making investments in agriculture that benefit private interests and agribusiness corporations at the expense of farmers, herders, fishers, food workers and Indigenous Peoples, undermining their food sovereignty, ecosystems and human rights.
Our concerns
PDBs are public institutions established by national governments or multilateral agencies to finance government programs and private companies whose activities are said to contribute to the improvement of people’s lives in the places where they operate, particularly in the Global South. Many multilateral development banks, a significant sub-group of PDBs, also provide technical and policy advice to governments to change their laws and policies to attract foreign investment.
As public institutions, PDBs are bound to respect, protect and fulfil human rights and are supposed to be accountable to the public for their actions. Today, development banks collectively spend over US$2 trillion a year financing public and private companies to build roads, power plants, factory farms, agribusiness plantations and more in the name of “development” – an estimated US$1.4 trillion goes into the sole agriculture and food sector. Their financing of private companies, whether through debt or the purchase of shares, is supposed to be done for a profit, but much of their spending is backed and financed by the public – by people’s labor and taxes.
The number of PDBs and the funding they receive is growing.The reach of these banks is also growing as they are increasingly channeling public funds through private equity, “green finance” and other financial schemes to deliver the intended solutions instead of more traditional support to government programs or non-profit projects. Money from a development bank provides a sort of guarantee for companies expanding into so-called high-risk countries or industries. These guarantees enable companies to raise more funds from private lenders or other development banks, often at favorable rates. Development banks thus play a critical role in enabling multinational corporations to expand further into markets and territories around the world – from gold mines in Armenia, to controversial hydroelectric dams in Colombia, to disastrous natural gas projects in Mozambique – in ways they could not do otherwise.
Additionally, many multilateral development banks work to explicitly shape national level law and policy through their technical advice to governments and ranking systems such as the Enabling the Business of Agriculture of the World Bank. The policies they support in key sectors — including health, water, education, energy, food security and agriculture — tend to advance the role of big corporations and elites. And when affected local communities, including Indigenous Peoples and small farmers protest, they are often not heard or face reprisals. For example, in India, the World Bank advised the government to deregulate the agricultural marketing system, and when the government implemented this advice without consulting with farmers and their organisations, it led to massive protests.
Public Development Banks claim that they only invest in “sustainable” and “responsible” companies and that their involvement improves corporate behavior. But these banks have a heavy legacy of investing in companies involved in land grabbing, corruption, violence, environmental destruction and other severe human rights violations, from which they have escaped any meaningful accountability. The increasing reliance of development banks on offshore private equity funds and complex investment webs, including so called financial intermediaries, to channel their investments makes accountability even more evasive and enables a small and powerful financial elite to capture the benefits.
It is alarming that Public Development Banks are now taking on more of a coordinated and central role when it comes to food and agriculture. They are a part of the global financial architecture that is driving dispossession and ecological destruction, much of which is caused by agribusiness. Over the years, their investment in agriculture has almost exclusively gone to companies engaged in monoculture plantations, contract growing schemes, animal factory farms, sales of hybrid and genetically modified seeds and pesticides, and digital agriculture platforms dominated by Big Tech. They have shown zero interest in or capacity to invest in the farm, fisher and forest communities that currently produce the majority of the world’s food. Instead, they are bankrolling land grabbers and corporate agribusinesses and destroying local food systems.
Painful examples
Important examples of the pattern we see Public Development Banks engaging in:
-
The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the European Investment Bank have provided generous financing to the agribusiness companies of some of Ukraine’s richest oligarchs, who control hundreds of thousands of hectares of land.
-
SOCFIN of Luxembourg and SIAT of Belgium, the two largest oil palm and rubber plantation owners in Africa, have received numerous financial loans from development banks, despite their subsidiaries being mired in land grabbing, corruption scandals and human rights violations.
-
Multiple development banks (including Swedfund, BIO, FMO and the DEG) financed the failed sugarcane plantation of Addax Bioenergy in Sierra Leone that has left a trail of devastation for local communities after the company’s exit.
-
The UK’s CDC Group and other European development banks (including BIO, DEG, FMO and Proparco) poured over $150 million into the now bankrupt Feronia Inc’s oil palm plantations in the DR Congo, despite long-standing conflicts with local communities over land and working conditions, allegations of corruption and serious human rights violations against villagers.
-
The United Nations’ Common Fund for Commodities invested in Agilis Partners, a US-owned company, which is involved in the violent eviction of thousands of villagers in Uganda for a large-scale grain farm.
-
Norfund and Finnfund own Green Resources, a Norwegian forestry company planting pine trees in Uganda on land taken from thousands of local farmers, with devastating effects on their livelihoods.
-
The Japan Bank for International Cooperation and the African Development Bank invested in a railway and port infrastructure project to enable Mitsui of Japan and Vale of Brazil to export coal from their mining operations in northern Mozambique. The project, connected to the controversial ProSavana agribusiness project, has led to land grabbing, forced relocations, fatal accidents and the detention and torture of project opponents.
-
The China Development Bank financed the ecologically and socially disastrous Gibe III dam in Ethiopia. Designed for electricity generation and to irrigate large-scale sugar, cotton and palm oil plantations such as the gargantuan Kuraz Sugar Development Project, it has cut off the river flow that the indigenous people of the Lower Omo Valley relied on for flood retreat agriculture.
-
In Nicaragua, FMO and Finnfund financed MLR Forestal, a company managing cocoa and teak plantations, which is controlled by gold mining interests responsible for displacement of Afro-descendant and Indigenous communities and environmental degradation.
-
The International Finance Corporation and the Inter-American Development Bank Invest have recently approved loans to Pronaca, Ecuador’s 4th largest corporation, to expand intensive pig and poultry production despite opposition from international and Ecuadorian groups, including local indigenous communities whose water and lands have been polluted by the company’s expansive operations.
-
The Inter-American Development Bank Invest is considering a new $43 million loan for Marfrig Global Foods, the world’s 2nd largest beef company, under the guise of promoting “sustainable beef.” Numerous reports have found Marfrig’s supply chain directly linked to illegal deforestation in the Amazon and Cerrado and human rights violations. The company has also faced corruption charges. A global campaign is now calling for PDBs to immediately divest from all industrial livestock operations.
We need better mechanisms to build food sovereignty
Governments and multilateral agencies are finally beginning to acknowledge that today’s global food system has failed to address hunger and is a key driver of multiple crises, from pandemics to biodiversity collapse to the climate emergency. But they are doing nothing to challenge the corporations who dominate the industrial food system and its model of production, trade and consumption. To the contrary, they are pushing for more corporate investment, more public private partnerships and more handouts to agribusiness.
This year’s summit of the development banks was deliberately chosen to follow on the heels of the UN Food Systems Summit. It was advertised as a global forum to find solutions to problems afflicting the global food system but was hijacked by corporate interests and became little more than a space for corporate greenwashing and showcasing industrial agriculture. The event was protested and boycotted by social movements and civil society, including through the Global People´s Summit and the Autonomous People´s response to the UN Food Systems Summit, as well as by academics from across the world.
The Finance in Common summit, with its focus on agriculture and agribusiness, will follow the same script. Financiers overseeing our public funds and mandates will gather with elites and corporate representatives to strategize on how to keep the money flowing into a model of food and agriculture that is leading to climate breakdown, increasing poverty and exacerbating all forms of malnutrition. Few if any representatives from the communities affected by the investments of the development banks, people who are on the frontlines trying to produce food for their communities, will be invited in or listened to. PDBs are not interested. They seek to fund agribusinesses, which produce commodities for trade and financial schemes for profits rather than food for nutrition.
Last year, a large coalition of civil-society organizations made a huge effort just to get the development banks to agree to commit to a human rights approach and community-led development. The result was only some limited language in the final declaration, which has not been translated into action.
We do not want any more of our public money, public mandates and public resources to be wasted on agribusiness companies that take land, natural resources and livelihoods away from local communities. Therefore:
We call for an immediate end to the financing of corporate agribusiness operations and speculative investments by public development banks.
We call for the creation of fully public and accountable funding mechanisms that support peoples’ efforts to build food sovereignty, realize the human right to food, protect and restore ecosystems, and address the climate emergency.
We call for the implementation of strong and effective mechanisms that provide communities with access to justice in case of adverse human rights impacts or social and environmental damages caused by PDB investments.
Fundación Plurales – Argentina
Fundación Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (FARN) – Argentina
Foro Ambiental Santiagueño – Argentina
Armenian Women For Health &Healthy Environment NGO /AWHHE/ – Armenia
Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance – Australia
SunGem – Australia
Welthaus Diözese Graz-Seckau – Austria
Turkmen Initiative for Human Rights – Austria
FIAN Austria – Austria
Oil Workers’ Rights Protection Organization Public Union – Azerbaijan
Initiative for Right View – Bangladesh
Right to Food South Asia – Bangladesh
IRV – Bangladesh
Bangladesh Agricultural Farm Labour Federation [BAFLF] – Bangladesh
NGO “Ecohome” – Belarus
Eclosio – Belgium
AEFJN – Belgium
FIAN Belgium – Belgium
Entraide et Fraternité – Belgium
Africa Europe Faith & Justice Network (AEFJN) – Belgium
Coalition for Fair Fisheries Arrangements – Belgium
Eurodad – Belgium
Friends of the Earth Europe – Belgium
Alianza Animalista La Paz – Bolivia
Instituto de Estudos Socioeconômicos (Inesc) – Brazil
Centro Ecologico – Brazil
FAOR Fórum da Amazônia Oriental – Brazil
Articulação Agro é Fogo – Brazil
Campanha Nacional de Combate e Prevenção ao Trabalho Escravo – Comissão Pastoral da Terra/CPT – Brazil
Clínica de Direitos Humanos da Amazônia -PPGD/UFPA – Brazil
Universidade Federal Fluminense IPsi – Brazil
Associação Brasileira de Reforma Agrária – Brazil
Rede Jubileu Sul Brasil – Brazil
Alternativas para pequena agricultura no Tocantins APATO – Brazil
CAPINA Cooperação e Apoio a Projetos de Inspiração Alternativa – Brazil
Marcha Mundial por Justiça Climática / Marcha Mundial do Clima – Brazil
MNCCD – Movimento Nacional Contra Corrupção e pela Democracia – Brazil
Marcha Mundial por Justiça Climática/Marcha Mundial do Clima – Brazil
Support Group for Indigenous Youth – Brazil
Comissão Pastoral da Terra -CPT – Brazil
Equitable Cambodia – Cambodia
Coalition of Cambodian Farmers Community – Cambodia
Struggle to Economize Future Environment (SEFE) – Cameroon
Synaparcam – Cameroon
APDDH -ASSISTANCE – Cameroon
Inter Pares – Canada
Vigilance OGM – Canada
National Farmers Union – Canada
SeedChange – Canada
Place de la Dignité – Canada
Corporación para la Protección y Desarrollo de Territorios Rurales- PRODETER – Colombia
Grupo Semillas – Colombia
Groupe de Recherche et de Plaidoyer sur les Industries Extractives (GRPIE) – Côte d’Ivoire
Réseau des Femmes Braves (REFEB) – Côte d’Ivoire
CLDA – Côte d’Ivoire
Counter Balance – Czech Republic
AfrosRD – Dominican Republic
Conseil Régional des Organisations Non gouvernementales de Développement – DR Congo
Construisons Ensemble le MONDE – DR Congo
Synergie Agir Contre la Faim et le Réchauffement Climatique , SACFRC. – DR Congo
COPACO-PRP – DR Congo
AICED – DR Congo
Réseaux d’informations et d’appui aux ONG en République Démocratique du Congo ( RIAO – RDC) – DR Congo
Latinoamérica Sustentable – Ecuador
Housing and Land Rights Network – Habitat International Coalition – Egypt
Pacific Islands Association of Non-Governmental Organisations (PIANGO) – Fiji
Internationale Situationniste – France
Pouvoir d’Agir – France
Europe solidaire sans frontières (ESSF) – France
Amis de la Terre France – France
Médias Sociaux pour un Autre Monde – France
ReAct Transnational – France
CCFD-Terre Solidaire – France
CADTM France – France
Coordination SUD – France
Движение Зеленных Грузии – Georgia
NGO “GAMARJOBA” – Georgia
StrongGogo – Georgia
FIAN Deutschland – Germany
Rettet den Regenwald – Germany
Angela Jost Translations – Germany
urgewald e.V. – Germany
Abibinsroma Foundation – Ghana
Alliance for Empowering Rural Communities – Ghana
Organización de Mujeres Tierra Viva – Guatemala
Campaña Guatemala sin hambre – Guatemala
PAPDA – Haïti
Centre de Recherche et d’Action pour le Developpement (CRAD) – Haiti
Ambiente, Desarrollo y Capacitación (ADC ) – Honduras
Rashtriya Raithu Seva Samithi – India
All India Union of Forest Working People AIUFWP – India
Centre for Financial Accountability – India
People First – India
Environics Trust – India
ToxicsWatch Alliance – India
Food Sovereignty Alliance – India
Indonesia for Global Justice (IGJ) – Indonesia
kruha – Indonesia
Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia (WALHI) – Indonesia
JPIC Kalimantan – Indonesia
تانيا جمعه /منظمه شؤون المراه والطفل – Iraq
ICW-CIF – Italy
PEAH – Policies for Equitable Access to Health – Italy
Focsiv Italian federation christian NGOs – Italy
Schola Campesina APS – Italy
Casa Congo- Italy
ReCommon – Italy
Japan International Volunteer Center (JVC) – Japan
Team OKADA – Japan
taneomamorukai – Japan
VoiceForAnimalsJapan – Japan
Keisen University – Japan
000 PAF NPO – Japan
Missionary Society of Saint Columban, Japan – Japan
Migrants around 60 – Japan
Mura-Machi Net (Network between Villages and Towns) – Japan
Japan Family Farmers Movement (Nouminren) – Japan
Pacific Asia Resorce Center(PARC) – Japan
A Quater Acre Farm-Jinendo – Japan
Friends of the Earth Japan – Japan
Alternative People’s Linkage in Asia (APLA) – Japan
Mekong Watch – Japan
Family Farming Platform Japan – Japan
Africa Japan Forum – Japan
ATTAC Kansai – Japan
ATTAC Japan – Japan
Association of Western Japan Agroecology (AWJA) – Japan
Mennovillage Naganuma – Japan
Phenix Center – Jordan
Mazingira Institute – Kenya
Dan Owala – Kenya
Jamaa Resource Initiatives – Kenya
Kenya Debt Abolition Network – Kenya
Haki Nawiri Afrika – Kenya
Euphrates Institute-Liberia – Liberia
Green Advocates International (Liberia) – Liberia
Sustainable Development Institute (SDI) – Liberia
Alliance for Rural Democracy (ARD) – Liberia
Frères des Hommes – Luxembourg
SOS FAIM – Luxembourg
Collectif pour la défense des terres malgaches – TANY – Madagascar
Third World Network – Malaysia
Appui Solidaire pour le Développement de l’Aide au Développement – Mali
Réseau CADTM Afrique – Mali
Lalo – Mexico
Tosepanpajt A.C – Mexico
Maya sin Fronteras – Mexico
Centro de Educación en Apoyo a la Producción y al Medio Ambiente, A.C. – Mexico
Mujeres Libres COLEM AC – México
Grupo de Mujeres de San Cristóbal Las Casas AC – México
Colectivo Educación para la Paaz y los Derechos Humanos A.C. (CEPAZDH) – México
Red Nacional de Promotoras Rurales – México
Dinamismo Juvenil A.C – México
Cultura Ambiental en Expansión AC – México
Observatorio Universitario de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional del Estado de Guanajuato – México
Centro Interdisciplinario de Investigación y Desarrollo Alternativo U Yich Lu’um AC – México
The Hunger Project México – México
Americas Program/Americas.Org – México
Association Talassemtane pour l’Environnement et Développement (ATED) – Morocco
Espace de Solidarité et de Coopération de l’Oriental – Morocco
LVC Maroc – Morocco
EJNA – Morocco
NAFSN – Morocco
Fédération nationale du secteur agricole – Morocco
Association jeunes pour jeunes – Morocco
Plataforma Mocambicana da Mulher e Rapariga Cooperativistas/AMPCM – MOZAMBIQUE – Mozambique
Justica Ambiental – JA! – Mozambique
Community Empowerment and Social Justice Network (CEMSOJ) – Nepal
WILPF NL – Netherlands
Milieudefensie – Netherlands
Platform Aarde Boer Consument – Netherlands
Both ENDS – Netherlands
Foundation for the Conservation of the Earth,FOCONE – Nigeria
Lekeh Development Foundation (LEDEF) – Nigeria
Nigeria Coal Network – Nigeria
Spire – Norway
Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum – Pakistan
Gaza Urban Agriculture Platform (GUPAP) – Palestine
Union of Agricultural Work Committees – Palestine
WomanHealth Philippines – Philippines
Agroecology X – Philippines
SEARICE – Philippines
Alter Trade Foundation for Food Sovereignty, Inc – Philippines
Association pour la défense des droits à l’eau et à l’assainissement – Sénégal
Biotech Services Sénégal – Sénégal
Association Sénégalaise des Amis de la Nature – Sénégal
Alliance Sénégalaise Contre la Faim et la Malnutrition – Sénégal
Association Sénégalaise des Amis de la Nature – Sénégal
Alliance Sénégalaise Contre la Faim et la Malnutrition – Sénégal
Green Scenery – Sierra Leone
Land for Life – Sierra Leone
JendaGbeni Centre for Social Change Communications – Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone Land Alliance – Sierra Leone
African Centre for Biodiversity – South Africa
African Children Empowerment – South Africa
Cooperative and Policy Alternative Centre – South Africa
Fish Hoek Valley Ratepayers and Residents Association – South Africa
Consciously Organic – South Africa
Wana Johnson Learning Centre – South Africa
Aha Properties – South Africa
Sacred Earth & Storm School – South Africa
Earth Magic – South Africa
Oasis – South Africa
Envirosense – South Africa
Greenstuff – South Africa
WoMin African Alliance – South Africa
Seonae Eco Centre – South Africa
Eco Hope – South Africa
Kos en Fynbos – South Africa
Ghostwriter Grant – South Africa
Mariann Coordinating Committee – South Africa
Khanyisa Education and Development Trust – South Africa
LAMOSA – South Africa
Ferndale Food Forest and Worm Farm – South Africa
Mxumbu Youth Agricultural Coop – South Africa
PHA Food & Farming Campaign – South Africa
SOLdePAZ.Pachakuti – Spain
Amigos de la Tierra – Spain
Sindicato Andaluz de Trabajadores/AS – Spain
Salva la Selva – Spain
Loco Matrifoco – Spain
National Fisheries Solidarity(NAFSO) – Sri Lanka
Movement for Land and Agricultural Reform (MONLAR) – Sri Lanka
Agr. Graduates Cooperatives Union – Sudan
FIAN Sweden – Sweden
FIAN Suisse – Switzerland
Bread for all – Switzerland
Foundation for Environmental Management and Campaign Against Poverty – Tanzania
World Animal Protection – Thailand
Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact – Thailand
PERMATIL – Timor-Leste
Afrique Eco 2100 – Togo
AJECC – Togo
ATGF – Tunisia
Forum Tunisien des Droits Economiques et Sociaux – Tunisia
Agora Association – Turkey
Uganda Land Rights Defenders – Uganda
Hopes for youth development Association – Uganda
Uganda Consortium on Corporate Accountability – Uganda
Centre for Citizens Conserving Environment &Management (CECIC) – Uganda
Buliisa Initiative for Rural Development Organisation (BIRUDO)) – Uganda
Twerwaneho Listeners Club – Uganda
Alliance for Food Soverignity in Africa – Uganda
Global Justice Now – UK
Friends of the Earth International – UK
Compassion in World Farming – UK
Environmental Justice Foundation – UK
Fresh Eyes – UK
War on Want – UK
Friends of the Earth US – US
A Growing Culture – US
Center for Political Innovation – US
GMO/Toxin Free USA – US
Friends of the Earth US – US
Thousand Currents – US
Local Futures – US
National Family Farm Coalition – US
Community Alliance for Global Justice/AGRA Watch – US
Bank Information Center – US
Seeding Sovereignty – US
Yemeni Observatory for Human Rights – Yemen
Zambia Alliance for Agroecology and Biodiversity – Zambia
Zambian Governance Foundation for Civil Society – Zambia
Urban Farming Zimbabwe – Zimbabwe
Centre for Alternative Development – Zimbabwe
FACHIG Trust – Zimbabwe
Red Latinoamericana por Justicia Económica y Social – Latindadd – América Latina
European Coordination Via Campesina – Europe
Arab Watch Coalition – Middle East and North Africa
FIAN International – International
International Alliance of Inhabitants – International
Society for International Development – International
ActionAid International – International
International Accountability Project – International
Habitat International Coalition – General Secretariat – International
CIDSE – International
ESCR-Net – International
World Rainforest Movement – International
Transnational Institute – International
GRAIN – International
Original Source: grian.org
Related posts:
You may like
NGO WORK
Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP16): Solutions for companies, losses for communities and biodiversity
Published
2 days agoon
October 28, 2024The Conference of the Parties (COP16) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is being held from October 21st to November 1st in Colombia. This initiative has failed in its goal of halting the alarming loss of biodiversity. For 30 years, instead of putting an end to extractive companies’ destruction, the CBD’s proposals have worsened the situation – through actions that have undermined both the sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples and communities, and their ability to remain in the territories they inhabit and protect.
The destruction of biodiversity to feed corporate greed is readily apparent through alarming facts and figures: 54 percent of wetlands have disappeared since 1900; land degradation from human activities is causing the extinction of one sixth of all species; and 50 percent of agricultural expansion between 1980 and 2000 occurred on razed areas of tropical forest (1). In Asia, oil palm plantations have been the main driver of forest loss during this period.
32 years ago, during the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, more than 170 countries pledged to take measures to halt this destruction. To this end, they signed the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). However, this initiative has failed spectacularly.
Despite their numerous declarations in support of taking action, and their adoption of goals and targets, governments have shown no real interest in taking the necessary measures to stop the destruction of biological diversity. By way of proof, one only has to review the targets established for the decade between 2010 to 2020, known as the Aichi Targets: none of them has been achieved.
The 16th Conference of the Parties (COP) to the CBD is being held in Cali, Colombia, from October 21st to November 1st, 2024. During this gathering, government negotiators aim to evaluate the countries’ progress in achieving the new targets set for the year 2030, which are included in the so-called Global Biodiversity Framework. Yet, over 85% of the countries missed the deadline to submit their new commitments before the start of the COP, revealing their ongoing lack of commitment (2).
To stop devastating biodiversity loss and try to reverse it, it would be necessary to put an end to the destruction in the first place. This destruction is caused by extractive oil companies, mining, agribusiness, plantations, hydroelectric dams, and other industries, as well as by other economic sectors that secondarily benefit from these destructive activities – such as airlines, banking, finance, investors, etc. Yet instead of stopping the destruction, the proposals implemented by the CBD tend to worsen the situation – through actions that undermine both the sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples and communities, and their ability to remain in the territories they inhabit and protect.
One of the concrete ways in which the CBD causes this kind of conflict is through the target known as “30 x 30,” which was promoted by large conservation NGOs. Its objective is for 30 percent of the planet – including the world’s land, fresh waters and oceans – to be declared as protected areas by 2030. However, this objective does not take into account the suffering and resistance of thousands of communities affected by the imposition of conservation areas in their territories – and the serious violations of their rights this has caused. Far from being a solution, this model of conservation without people actually generates conflict and violence, costing lives in the communities that lose control of the territories they inhabit.
Another major and worrisome threat coming from the Convention on Biological Diversity (and the corporate influence over it) is the inclusion of biodiversity offsets and credits as a legitimate mechanism to “repair” the destruction that companies have caused.
Through offsets, polluting industries assume the right to destroy territories, with the excuse that these damages and losses will be “offset” elsewhere on the planet. However, this is not possible. In a recent Statement, hundreds of civil society organizations warned that “biodiversity offsets can create conflicts over the right to own and use lands, fisheries and forests, and can compete with agroecology and smallholder agriculture, undermining food sovereignty. [These offset projects] will likely drive land grabbing, the displacement of communities, increased inequality in access to land, and human rights violations – just like carbon offsets do.”
This Statement warns that biodiversity offsets and credits seek to imitate carbon offsets and credits. But not only are they replicating the faults of carbon offsets and credits; biodiversity credits and offsets intensify negative impacts by including innumerable forms of life in a strategy of financialization. So far, these mechanisms have proven to benefit large corporations that continue to pollute – such as oil, mining and airline companies. They also benefit the associated chain of managers, certifiers, consultants and financiers that implement these mechanisms. Meanwhile, communities are suffering from the deception and impacts of these mechanisms, which have been widely documented by academia, the press, and other sectors.
We invite you to read the full statement, which also presents alternative proposals to another key point on the COP16 agenda: the financing of strategies to stop biodiversity loss.
This bulletin also includes articles about how tree plantations and offset projects are expanding and occupying territories, as well as other articles celebrating the resistance of communities.
One of the articles, from Gabon, documents the power of community resistance to Sequoia’s attempts to install 60,000 hectares of eucalyptus plantations in the Bateke Plateau region that would be used to generate carbon credits. Another article from the Republic of Congo describes how oil companies are grabbing land to set up tree plantations for the carbon market, so that they can greenwash their image. A third article reports from two provinces in Mozambique where eucalyptus plantations have obliterated the biological and genetic diversity of the machambas (traditional cultivation areas). In the wake of the pulp industry, major homogenization occurs, and the expression of the genetic diversity of seeds and local varieties disappears.
Another article analyzes the Thai government’s strategy to implement an offset-based climate policy, a concept which is inherently contradictory and which expands corporate control over community lands. And now the Thai government wants to extrapolate this idea from the climate and apply it to biodiversity. These offset projects would be carried out in “green areas” that would cover more than 50 percent of the country.
Finally, we present the third episode of the podcast entitled “Women’s Struggles for Land,” which aims to highlight the voices of women and their multiple forms of resistance to the occupation of their territories. This third episode, from Indonesia, was jointly produced with the organization, Solidaritas Perumpuan, and it recounts the experiences of women in the Kalimantan region facing plantation projects and REDD projects.
This collection of cases reveals how the kinds of actions proposed at the COPs affect people’s sovereignty over the territories they inhabit. Their sovereignty is indispensable in stopping the biodiversity crisis. In light of this situation, many peoples and communities around the world are reclaiming control of their territories and are fighting to defend them. In so doing, they are defending biological diversity and life itself!
(1) Estado actual y resultados de la IPBES | Biodiversidad Mexicana
(2) COP16: More than 85% of countries miss UN deadline to submit nature pledges – Carbon Brief
Orginal Source: World Rainforest Movement (WRM)
Related posts:
NGO WORK
Republic of Congo: expansion of tree plantations linked to the carbon market – the underside of an opaque business and greenwashing
Published
2 days agoon
October 28, 2024In Congo-Brazzaville, tree planting projects intended for carbon markets have proliferated over the past four years. This concerns large-scale developments of monocultures initiated by oil companies under the seductive term of carbon neutrality and promises of job creation for communities. In reality, they are neither a solution to the climate crisis nor a benefit for the communities of Congo.
Oil and gas industries represent the main source of global emissions. (1) Instead of reducing their emissions, they take advantage of human concern about climate change to promote misleading plans for the expansion of tree planting as a solution to offsetting their emissions. (2) In a vicious circle, very opaque plantation projects are developing, generating new sources of income for plantation companies and providing multinationals a justification to continue to pollute. Twenty years earlier, organizations were already sounding the alarm over greenwashing claims that the expansion of plantations could offset carbon emissions. (3) The devastating effects of these projects, however, do not appear in the advertising messages.
In the Republic of Congo, reforestation projects began in 1936, after colonial destruction. (4) A National Reforestation Service was created and a national afforestation and reforestation program put in place to install one million hectares of plantations. (5) In 2013, the country launched its first carbon project as part of the REDD+ process, the financing of which has not yet been resolved. (6) The expansion of carbon projects initiated by private entities begins in 2019, after several reforms including the revision of the Forest Code, the adoption of a REDD+ strategy and the establishment of a Carbon Task Force. (7)
In the space of four years, between 2019 and 2023, seven long-term lease contracts were concluded between the government and the extractive industries for a total of approximately 570,000 hectares- an area larger than the country of Luxembourg (see the map
Among the signatories of these lease contracts are European multinationals operating in the country and the consultancy firm Forest Management Resource (FRM). FRM is the pioneer of carbon plantation projects in Congo and is now associated with the majority of multinationals, with its omnipresence carrying the scent of mixing roles and conflicts of interest.
Let’s come first to the contracts, these are lease contracts for land the state inherited from the colonial era, this time leased out for the development of carbon compensation projects, thus encouraging the continuity of carbon pollution. This lease contract system presents a colonial reconquest of agricultural land obtained through colonial heritage (9), in a very opaque and non-consensual approach. The architecture of this approach is generally characterized by the absence of a framework to make the lease contracts public, thus reinforcing opacity of information that ought to be public. Specifically, we note the absence of community consultation before the start of certain projects. (10) This has been strongly criticized in several carbon projects developed around the world.
Concerning the area granted, these plantation projects are developing in a logic of land grabbing in which the government facilitates the lease of land it claims to be the “public domain of the State”, under the law n°9-2004 of March 26 2004. But this claim of the State remains contested, especially since articles 2, 5 and 23 of the Constitution of October 25, 2015 advocate that national sovereignty is vested in the people. Another thing to note is that the ratio between the area granted in the leases and that targeted for plantations does not match. In fact, the total area to be planted adds up to 380,000 hectares out of the 570,000 hectares granted in leases. This raises the question about the use of those portions of land which these projects do not mention.
In addition to opaque information and land grabbing, we also note the use of misleading and seductive terms such as carbon neutrality and the promise of job creation for communities. According to various studies, monoculture tree plantations actually have a low sequestration potential compared to that of forests; monocultures also consume large quantities of water and negatively affect natural ecosystems. (11) In essence, to set up the plantations, all or part of the existing vegetation is destroyed in order to compensate for oil emissions.
Now, it is important to understand the impact of the expansion of these projects on forest-dependent communities and what is behind these projects.
FRM COFOR: communities question an opaque carbon market
In 2019, Forêt Ressources Management, created a subsidiary called Congo Forest Plantation (COFOR), a company under Congolese law. The same year, it signed a long-term lease contract with the government of Congo to develop the reforestation at Madingou-Kayes. The company is currently developing four projects with its investors. Interviewed by the Makanisi blog, the owner of the company stated that the projects will establish acacia-cassava and eucalyptus plantations, develop a sawmilling and plywood sector with an attractive promise of creating thousands jobs for communities. (12) Another objective of the project is to contribute to climate change mitigation through plantations. (13)
But the reality looks very different. Madingou-Kayes communities interviewed state that “we do not have access to either the lease contract or the project document. We are even surprised to hear that there are carbon projects here. All we know is not to enter this forest…”. Apart from the lack of information, the consent of the communities was evidently not obtained before the start of the project.
BACASI: greenwashing, violence against communities, a useless project for the country
The BaCaSi project is a partnership of several entities, among others: French oil company Total Energies and the company Forêt Ressources Management, via its Congolese subsidiary Forest Neutral Congo and the Republic of Congo. The project aims to develop a 40,000-hectare monoculture plantation within a project area of 55,000 hectares (14), while paradoxically, the area conceded as lease in 2022 is 70,089 hectares. This raises questions about other unstated objectives of the project.
In addition, the project is said to involve ‘a partnership based on advanced local agriculture and forestry, serving integrated development and climate action, with co-benefits such as jobs as well as social projects in the areas of nutrition, health and education.’ (14)
However, research by local and international organizations has revealed that this is a very controversial project. In particular, farmers and indigenous populations were ordered to leave their land, an indication of the project’s grabbing policy, some land-owning communities also received low compensation from the authorities (some at a rate of one dollar per hectare) and lost their livelihoods, which reinforces their food insecurity and poverty. (15) The revelations about the Bakasi project do not stop there. “Because this is not only be about carbon credits, the plantation in reality will only offset 2 percent of the carbon emissions of the oil company Total Energies, so behind this operation, is a question of money and not a question of corporate philanthropy” remarks a human rights defender who concludes that this project is not useful for the Republic of Congo.
Sequoia plantation: wood processing and opaque credit ambition
After multiple attempts to develop a destructive plantation project which has been held in check by communities and civil society in Gabon (16, see also article in this bulletin), the company Séquoia Plantations found refuge in the Republic of Congo, thanks to significant support granted by the authorities, declared one of the company’s managers. (17) Sequoia, founded by the multinational OLAM, is now part of the Equitane group, based in Dubai. Two lease contracts have been concluded for two projects currently under development: a 36,000-hectare replanting project was granted in May 2023 and the 69,000-hectare project obtained a lease in 2022, representing a total investment of 96.5 million Euros. (18)
Although according to the project document (19), the project focus is on the establishment of new tree plantations, plantation wood is already being harvested and processed at the site, thus raising questions about adding new to old plantations. Indeed, comments by the company manager point to objectives beyond those acknowledged in the project documents. During an interview (19), the manager suggested that his company will carry out large-scale plantations, with a view to fighting climate change and while reducing their carbon footprint. On the other hand, a resident of Mandingou-Kaye denounces the lack of accessibility to the lease contract and a consultation process tailored to local authorities. It is important to ultimately establish the existence of an unacknowledged carbon agenda and that the projects were developed with only partial information available.
ECO ZAMBA : excessive opportunism and unpredictable impacts
EcoZamba is a project of the National Oil Company of Congo, taking place in the savannah zone of the Congo Plateau. A 30-year lease contract was concluded in 2024 with the government. The contract grants the company the use of 168,720 hectares of land. Afforestation and agroforestry projects said to cover 50,000 hectares aim, among other things, at the sale of carbon credits. (20)
Some NGOs are skeptical about the impacts of this project on communities and the environment. According to them, “reforestation is not the priority oil companies. Their calling is to produce and market oil. They are launching into a sector that is not theirs. It’s out of simple opportunism. Environmentally, we are losing our savannah ecosystem with impacts on animals, birds and insects that can only thrive in savannah areas.” The cost of financing the project has not been revealed, and neither has the lease contract been made public. (21)
RENCO : the Mbé carbon garden project
The government of the Republic of Congo and the company RENCO GREEN SARLU, a subsidiary of the Italian multinational RENCO SPA, signed a partnership agreement on July 28, 2023 as part of the Carbone-Mbé Garden initiative. The project aims to establish acacia plantations on 40,050 hectares and market the carbon of the planted trees. Project plans include the proposal to establish 1,200 hectares of agroforestry plantations for the benefit of communities, following an “Acacia-Manioc” agroforestry model, with the plan to set up one hundred and fifty (150) hectares per year and rotations of eight years. (22)
The existing law grants exclusivity of the carbon credits generated in the plantations established on the lease lands that are part of the State forest domain to the private company that holds the lease. Thus, ultimately, the project does not provide for any benefit sharing plan from the carbon sold with the communities.
Additional carbon projects have been awarded in the Republic of Congo, in the forestry and conservation industry sectors. Among others, the forest industry of Ouesso (23); the logging companies Congolaise Industrielle de Bois and Yuan Dong Forestry Company, and the conservation NGO Widlife Conservation Society have been awarded permits for carbon projects. (24) Also, African Park Network, manager of the Odzala-Kokoua National Park, has expressed its intention to diversify its field of activity into carbon credits. (25)
Ultimately, the interest of oil extraction companies remains to continue to extract fossil fuels, as well as to do business in the carbon market, which provides a double benefit for them. (26) To do this, they develop deceptive projects, seduce communities and use very opaque approaches. Meanwhile, the roots of the problem remain intact, including: climate change caused by the use of fossil fuels and communities lacking access and protection of their customary lands. So, no matter how large it is, no tree plantation will ever be able to absorb the carbon emitted by oil activities and will never solve the problems of communities dependent on land and forests.
Bernadin Yassine NGOUMBA, defender of human rights and the environment, and the WRM
(1) Rapport Agence internationale de l’énergie (AIE 2023) : 33 pour cent pour le pétrole et 23 pour cent pour le gaz naturel. https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2023
(2) WRM. Expansion des plantations d’arbres pour les marchés du carbone. Décembre 2023.
(3) Déclaration du Groupe de Durban. 2004.
(4) Jean, B. et Delwaulle, – J.C. Les Reboisements en République Populaire du Congo. La Chronique Internationale. 1981, Vol. XIII, 2.
(5) Service National de Reboisement (http://snrcongo.free.fr/ ) créé en 1986 et Programme National d’Afforestation et de Reboisement (PRONAR) créé en 201. https://tinyurl.com/4cx47zuc
(6) RP Sangha Likouala, document de projet. https://tinyurl.com/4h9js8y3
(7) Code forestier revisé : Loi 33 du 08 juillet 2020 portant code forestier, art. Titre 10 sur les crédits carbone, art. 177 et suivant (https://www.sgg.cg/codes/congo-code-2020-forestier.pdf) ; strategie REDD : Stratégie REDD+, 2018; task force carbone : Communiqué de la session inaugurale de la mise en place de la Task-Force Carbone, février 2024.
(8) Pigeaud, Fanny. Dans le bassin du Congo, la Françafrique fait feu de tout bois. Pulitzer Center, 2024.
(9) Raison, Jean-Pierre. La colonisation des terres neuves intertropicales. Persée. 1968, 5-112.
(10) REDD Monitor, Les dirigeants autochtones n’ont pas été consultés sur l’accord REDD de 180 millions de
dollars conclu par la coalition LEAF dans l’État du Pará. https://reddmonitor.substack.com/p/indigenous-leaders-were-not-consulted
(11) Total au Congo, une opération de Greenwashing destructice. Comité catholique contre la faim et pour le développement – terre solidaire. 2022.
(12) Le Congo mise sur l’agroforesterie et les puits de carbone en savane. Malu-Malu, Muriel Devey. s.l. : Makanisi, 2021.
(13) Paul Bertaux et al. Les plantations forestières en Afrique Centrale. 2020.
(14) Le projet BaCaSi : un partenariat pionnier pour le développement durable en République du Congo. Total Energie. 2022. Voir aussi : Loi n°7-2022 du 26 janvier 2022 portant approbation de la convention de partenariat entre le gouvernement et les sociétés Total Nature Based, Congo Forest Company et Forest Neutral Congo.
(15) Des paysans expulsés pour des crédits carbone au Congo. Tiassou, Kossivi. 2023.
(16) Haut-Ogoou” : Sequoia plantations face au rejet des population malgré l’opportuinité d’emploi. Libreville : s.n., 19 septembre 2023, Ethique media Gabon.
(17) Singh, Satinder. Une déléguation de la société Sequoia chez Rosalie Matondo. Page facebook du MEF. Brazzaville, 19 Janvier 2024.
(18) SEQUOIA Plantation. Note d’information: La situation de l’eucalyptus en République du Congo. 2024. p. 4-5.
(19) Barot, Shailesh. Exploitation forestière: la société Sequoia plantation obtient une concession de 35 961 hectares. Brazzaville, 13 mai 2023.
(20) Signature d’un bail emphytéotique entre le gouvernement congolais et la SNPC. Agence d’information environnementale. s.l., 2024.¸ Projet Eco Zamba : la SNPC s’engage dans la plantation d’acacias pour compenser son impact environnemental au Congo. Fatshimetrie. s.l., 2023.
(21) Congo-B: la compagnie pétrolière nationale lance un projet de reforestation. RFI, 2023.
(22) Projet JACA-Mbé : RENCO Green Sarlu compte séquestrer 30 millions de tonnes équivalent carbone à l’horizon 2025. Agence d’information’environnementale. AIE. Voir aussi : Loi 33 du 08 juillet 2020 portant code forestier, art. Titre 10 sur les crédits carbone, art. 177 et suivant.
(23) Congo : Un accord pour commercialiser les réductions des émissions générées dans les Aac de Ngombé. Fédération Atlantique des Agences de Presse Africaine (FAAPA). s.l., 2024. Voir aussi : Projet Interholco AG
(24) Projet OLAM CIB; Projet SEFYD; Projet HIFOR de WCS, gestionnaire du Parc Nuabalé Ndoki;
(25) https://www.aci.cg/congo-economie-forestiere-necessite-de-diversifier-les-activites-du-parc-national-dodzala-kokoua-pour-promouvoir-lecotourisme/?amp=1
(26) La région de la Sangha en République du Congo. WRM. 2022.
Original Source: World Rainforest Movement (WRM)
Related posts:
NGO WORK
Opinion: Why we cannot celebrate the World Bank’s 80-year anniversary
Published
2 months agoon
September 12, 2024This July, the World Bank Group celebrates its 80th anniversary. But for women and communities across the Global South there is nothing to celebrate. In this op-ed originally published by Devex on 19 July 2024, three close partners of the Coalition (Titi Soentoro from Aksi!, gender, social and ecological justice” – Indonesia; Verónica Gostissa from Asamblea Pucara – Argentina; and Mbole Veronique from Green Development Advocates – Cameroon) share stories from their countries showing how the World Bank is exacerbating the exact problems it claims to solve.
This July, the World Bank Group celebrates its 80th anniversary. But for us — women rights defenders from Asia, Africa, and Latin America — there is nothing to celebrate.
While the World Bank is proudly presenting its successes in fighting poverty and building a greener future, the stories of communities in our countries paint a very different picture. From recent controversial projects to old ones where communities never found justice, the World Bank has a 80-year legacy of harm and impoverishment.
The negative impact of development projects can be long lasting. In 1985, the World Bank funded the Kedung Ombo Dam in Indonesia. Over 27,000 people were forcibly and violently evicted, with the military threatening those trying to resist. Forty years later, the harm inflicted remains unaddressed. Resettled women don’t have close access to water sources, health facilities, and a market. Pregnant women have failed to get checkups, while children have often dropped out of school and are being forced into early marriages. Yet, despite acknowledging the harm it caused, the World Bank keeps replicating old mistakes.
In 2022, a community in Cameroon filed a complaint raising serious concerns about the World Bank-funded Nachtigal hydroelectric project, one of the largest dams in Central Africa. Imposed without people’s participation, the project is destroying livelihoods, taking lands, causingdeforestation, and destroying sacred sites. Our Cameroonian sisters are particularly affected: They have lost access to the forests where they used to pick medicinal herbs and other key natural resources. The complaint process has come to an end, but the hopes for justice are extremely limited. The investigations conducted by the bank’s accountability mechanisms are known to be extremely lengthy — and only rarely lead to some remedy.
Civil society has been calling on the World Bank Group to strengthen its safeguards and accountability mechanisms, which are currently falling short of a human rights-based approach. But for every step forward, there has been a step back. Moreover, safeguards have often been used as a pretext to protect the institution from the international human rights legal system and to avoid applying more stringent standards.
Under its new president, Ajay Banga, the World Bank has been undertaking a series of reforms, to become bigger and bolder in its response to climate change. But the bank’s actions appear to indicate more of the same. Beyond the catchy slogans, the World Bank is still replicating a top-down and neocolonial development model that ends up exacerbating the exact problems the bank claims to solve. For example, in Indonesia the World Bank Group — despite its pledges to address climate change — is funding the expansion of the Java 9 and 10 plants, considered the largest and dirtiest coal plants in Southeast Asia.
In its 80 years of existence, it is our view, as shared with other civil society groups, that the World Bank has fueled the spiraling debt crisis, growing inequality, and climate change, with a disproportionate impact on women and children. Some stories — like the scandal of the child sex abuse case in Kenyan schools funded by the World Bank — have hit the headlines. Others, unfortunately, have remained largely unreported.
Last year, the International Finance Corporation — the World Bank’s private arm — approved a $180 million loan to Allkem, for its Sal de Vida lithium mining project in Argentina’s Salar del Hombre Muerto. On paper, this investment falls under the bank’s green portfolio, because lithium is needed for the electric car batteries. In reality, this project has a catastrophic environmental impact, dried up one of the most important rivers in the area,, and violates the rights of the local Indigenous communities.
Before the project was approved, local communities and civil society organizations had sounded the alarm bell. They had prepared briefings on the project’s impacts and engaged with IFC to raise their concerns. But despite being recognized as “beneficiaries,” local communities say they are routinely ignored or silenced. The bank approved the loan without the community’s consent and did not take any action when local activists were threatened and criminalized.
As women defenders and caregivers, for generations we have been protecting our ecosystems sacrificed in the name of development and cared for our communities harmed under the pretext of economic growth. For generations, we have stood in solidarity with our sisters and brothers across the world who have been demanding a different type of development.
The World Bank cannot get it right by putting blinders on the past. The evicted Indonesian communities will not get their flooded land back. The women in Cameroon will not be able to access their precious medicinal herbs, as their forests have been cleared. And the Indigenous people in the Salar del Hombre Muerto lost their meadow near the river Trapiche, which dried up because of the huge volumes of fresh water used to extract lithium. But the World Bank is still on time to withdraw from controversial new projects, to provide remedy to the harmed communities, to speed up the investigation processes, and to seek meaningful consent before building something. Eighty years are enough. If bank President Banga wants the institution to grow bigger, it should learn from the past as it looks forward.
Original Source: Coalition for Human Rights In Development.
Related posts:
Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP16): Solutions for companies, losses for communities and biodiversity
Republic of Congo: expansion of tree plantations linked to the carbon market – the underside of an opaque business and greenwashing
EACOP activism under Siege: Activists are reportedly criminalized for opposing oil pipeline project in Uganda.
African Women forge bold actions for climate justice at the 2024 Women’s Climate Assembly in Senegal.
EACOP: Another community of 80 households has lost its land to the government and Total Energies to construct an oil pipeline.
Breaking: West and Central African women meet in Senegal over the climate crisis.
Carbon offset projects exacerbate land grabbing and undermine small farmers’ independence – GRAIN report
EACOP activism under Siege: Activists are reportedly criminalized for opposing oil pipeline project in Uganda.
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
Resource Center
- LAND GRABS AT GUNPOINT REPORT IN KIRYANDONGO DISTRICT
- FROM LAND GRABBERS TO CARBON COWBOYS A NEW SCRAMBLE FOR COMMUNITY LANDS TAKES OFF
- African Faith Leaders Demand Reparations From The Gates Foundation.
- GUNS, MONEY AND POWER GRABBED OVER 1,975,834 HECTARES OF LAND; BROKE FAMILIES IN MUBENDE DISTRICT.
- THE SITUATION OF PLANET, ENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND RIGHTS DEFENDERS IS FURTHER DETERIORATING IN UGANDA AS 2023 WITNESSED A RECORD OF OVER 180 ATTACKS.
- A CASE STUDY REPORT ON THE CHALLENGES OF ACCESSING JUSTICE BY VICTIMS OF LAND GRABBING DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND THE IMPACT ON DISPLACED COMMUNITIES IN UGANDA
- MEDIA STATEMENT ON THE PRESIDENT’S DIRECTIVE STOPPING ILLEGAL EVICTIONS
- LAND RIGHTS AS A PATHWAY OUT OF THE CLIMATE CRISIS
Legal Framework
READ BY CATEGORY
Newsletter
Trending
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK1 week ago
EACOP activism under Siege: Activists are reportedly criminalized for opposing oil pipeline project in Uganda.
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK2 weeks ago
African Women forge bold actions for climate justice at the 2024 Women’s Climate Assembly in Senegal.
-
NGO WORK2 days ago
Republic of Congo: expansion of tree plantations linked to the carbon market – the underside of an opaque business and greenwashing
-
NGO WORK2 days ago
Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP16): Solutions for companies, losses for communities and biodiversity