Opinion

By Lynet Otieno | 18 hours ago

The COP29 wrapped up in Azerbaijan yesterday, with one of the recorded achievements being operationalisation of carbon markets, as per Article 6 of the Paris Agreement.

This means richer nations or heavily polluting companies fund green climate action in developing nations, to atone for their sins.

They include forestry projects and clean cook-stoves for rural households that heavily rely on wood fuel. The idea is once households acquire such stoves, they will significantly reduce reliance on firewood, hence sparing the forests, which are carbon sinks. Firms take credit for these, sometimes by just counting the number of stoves distributed. 

This, however, could be one of the biggest fallacies ever sold to Africa. The logic behind it is far from realities on the ground. Take the clean cook-stoves idea, for instance. Our mothers buy them, but continue to use wood fuel. If anything, some food stuff, like nyama choma (roast meat) are believed to taste better when cooked on smoke filled fire. Change in their cultural, tradition and other preferences that affect cooking habits is not guaranteed.

Despite being able to use gas, including the little two-burner whose clean fuel can be bought in little quantities, and the clean cook-stove, my mother’s kitchen outside the main house is where cooking happens. The gas means are only for warming food, or making tea, while the energy saving clean cook-stove has not been touched for over a year. Owning the energy saving stove has not changed her cooking habits or preferences.

Even with the forestry projects, which have been popularised as an avenue for carbon credits, ethical and logistical challenges abound.

First, who decides the rates? Some resources, such as the Congo Forest, that be candidates for reforestation through carbon markets funds, are also where heavy mining activities are ongoing, are human settlements, and also where they farm and graze their livestock. The risk of fires, exacerbated by human activities or prolonged hot seasons, is high, and could, in one instance, erase years of efforts to accrue carbon savings.

Indigenous communities are rarely involved in such decisions. Governments make the deals with the foreign entities. Many communities do not understand carbon markets, and so would not be in a position to scrutinise for misappropriations. They risk forced displacement or other rights abuse. As the global North earns credits, inequalities and injustice thrive in global South.

Just asking: Who, in their right senses, would stop a pollutant venture if they can earn huge profits, even after sparing a portion to offset carbon footprints? The thing is, pressure will be on the global South to reduce their carbon footprints, while the North continues to grow their economies without necessarily reducing emissions. The North is cunning, and is out to maintain a cycle of dependency and underdevelopment in the global South.  

Africa must approach carbon markets with caution and push for genuine action, including reducing emissions at source, especially in energy, transportation, and heavy industry sectors. Africa must prioritise adaptation finance over carbon offsets. It must prioritise renewable energy, proper management of water resources, and improved agricultural practices.

There must be more transparency in the carbon markets business. Africa has for ages demanded climate justice, and securing the Loss and Damage fund was a good step. But allowing the carbon markets idea to thrive locally will be the mother of all fat injustices in the long run, as it mostly benefits the powerful, not necessarily the vulnerable.

Just asking: Why, despite all the many ongoing efforts, did a UNEP 2023 Emissions Gap Report, show that the global GHG emissions rose by 1.3 per cent in 2023, compared to 2022? Let’s focus on real, sustainable climate solutions.

- The writer champions climate justice.