Since the early 2010s corporations have acquired over 7 million hectares of land for large-scale, industrial farms in sub-Saharan Africa, with most of these projects focused on producing water-intensive crops in already water-stressed regions. While the media spotlight is often on climate change-induced droughts, little is being said about the corporate-driven water scarcity these projects are inflicting upon people across Africa. Driven by the goal of expanding export production of water-intensive crops, governments are auctioning Africa’s water resources to the highest bidder. The new rush for land on the continent to grow trees for carbon credits is making this worse.

Water plundering

Only in the last 8 years, companies have signed land deals for over 5 million hectares for water-hungry plants in Africa. Take, for example, the New York-based company African Agriculture Holdings. It planned to use massive amounts of water from the Senegal River– the main water source for Dakar and several other major cities in Senegal, to produce alfalfa for export to South Korea and the Gulf states on 25,000 ha of land within a protected wetland. The company also planned to grow alfalfa on up to 500,000 hectares in neighbouring Mauritania, one of the most water stressed countries on the planet, and to plant a million water-hungry acacia trees in Niger to generate carbon credits. While it now appears that the company is heading for financial ruin, its CEO has already announced a new venture to grow maize on over 600,000 hectares in central Africa.

Development banks, like the African Development Bank (AfDB) and the World Bank, are working with African governments to bankroll a massive rollout of new irrigation projects across the continent to facilitate more of these agribusiness investments. In Tanzania, for instance, the government and the AfDB have budgeted hundreds of millions of dollars of public funds for large-scale irrigation projects with the private sector, with a stated goal of irrigating 8.5 million hectares by 2030– which is more than today’s total irrigated land area in all of sub-Saharan Africa.

In Kenya, President Ruto has pledged nearly US$500 million for irrigation projects nationwide, including the Rwabura irrigation project in Kiambu county, the Iriari project in Embu as well as the Kanyuambora irrigation project. The Kanyuambora, like the others, will draw water from the Thuci river and irrigate 400 hectares, which will be used to farm crops such as horticultural produce.

One company that intends to profit big from this expansion of irrigation in Tanzania, Kenya and other countries in eastern and southern Africa is South Africa-based Westfalia. The company, which is particularly active in avocado production, controls 1,200 hectares in South Africa and 1,400 in Mozambique. With support from South Africa’s government-owned Industrial Development Corporation and the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation, Westfalia is promoting the expansion of the avocado industry in countries such as Mexico, Peru, Chile and Colombia, where avocados have already fuelled a severe water crisis. Replicating this model in other African countries promises to create a similar situation.

Africa’s experience to date with large-scale irrigation projects is dismal. Most of the projects implemented over the past decades failed or are in poor condition. And many of the so-called success cases have caused more harm than good. Consider the irrigation project in Lake Naivasha, Kenya, which triggered a boom in foreign investment in flower farms in the 1980s and 1990s that serve the European and Chinese markets. Only six farms now consume over half of the water volume used for irrigation in the lake’s basin. The impact of the flower farms range from pesticide pollution, to biodiversity loss, and hampering access to safe and clean water for local people. In return there have been few benefits, with workers toiling in gruelling and hazardous conditions for meagre wages and the companies avoiding taxes.

In Morocco fruit exports-primarily destined for European and UK markets-are driven by water hungry crops such as berries, watermelon, citrus and avocados. Between 2016 and 2021 these exports more than doubled. The biggest beneficiaries of this boom are corporations as Les Domaines Export, belonging to the country’s elite, alongside foreign companies like Surexport and Hortifrut, all backed by financial players, including pension funds and development banks. Today, Morocco has more irrigated land area than any other country in Africa, aside from Egypt.

A pastoralist from Moroto one of the most dry areas in Uganda looking after his herd. Pastoralists in this region move long distances to look for pasture and water for their herds.By Nobert Petro Kalule.

Export oriented industrial agriculture consumes 85% of the country’s water resources, intensifying the severe water stress gripping the kingdom, even as the country endures six consecutive years of drought. To cope with the crisis, the government announced the end of fruit subsidies. Yet, the measure will have little impact on large farms, since they have the financial capacity to continue with their operations, whereas small farmers will be the most affected. Other plans include investing in desalination plants. But the high energy and environmental costs make it far from a sustainable long-term solution.

On the opposite end of the continent, South Africa – one of Africa’s richest economy – has long struggled with a persistent water crisis. This is largely due to the fact that 65 percent of the country’s water resources are allocated to industrial agriculture.

Africa’s water custodians

The impact of industrial agriculture’s thirst for water is felt most acutely by African women. Already tasked with managing households, caring for families and farming for food, women and young girls are also responsible for collecting all the water needed for both their homes and farms.

As such, they bear the heavy burden of trekking long distances – sometimes multiple times a day – to collect water. It is estimated that African women collectively spend about 40 billion hours annually fetching water. As more of their water sources are diverted for use on export-oriented industrial farms, it will make it even harder for them to access the water they need for their households.

Paradoxically, those most affected by the water issues affecting the continent may also be the ones with the solutions. Rural women possess invaluable knowledge about local water sources, their usage, storage and conservation. They know, for example, ways of recycling water for washing, irrigation and livestock, like the women pastoralists of the Anuak people in Ethiopia’s Gambela region, know how and when to move their animals from wetter areas to drier ones in the rainy season, allowing local rivers to replenish and maintain its fertility.

In Kenya, Martha Waiganjo, a farmer from the dry lands of Gilgil, is one of many smallholder farmers working with the Seed Saver’s Network (SSN) to take advantage of rain water harvesting and conservation techniques as part of their agroecological practices. Through rain water harvesting, farmers like her are able to collect, store and conserve run off rain water for later use.

The run off water is stored in manually dug up dams that are lined with an anti-seepage layer of plastic commonly known as a dam liner. For Martha, her dam allows her to store close to 40,000 litres of water for her sustenance throughout the year. “[…] Water harvesting has been of great improvement on our farms, we don’t need the rain to plant. We use the water for irrigation and domestic use. The most important thing in water harvesting is that when the area is dry we use the water not only for farming but for the needs of the whole community. It is also of great importance to livestock farming.”[1]

In 2021, the UN estimated that nearly 160 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa (14% of the population) were affected by water scarcity and stress, and, with the effects of climate change now kicking in, the numbers are expected to be even higher in 2025 and beyond.

The fixation of governments, development banks and corporations on large-scale irrigation projects for industrial agriculture in Africa has to end. Water needs to instead be in the hands of the small-scale food producers who feed the continent and who are best able to develop solutions to the challenges posed by climate change.

Cover photo: Kenya 2011. Colin Crowley/Save the Children/ Creative Commons/Flickr

Original Source: Grain

The 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)

In 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)