8

Land grabs are rampant in Africa. Professor Patrick Mugo Mugo, a research associate in food security and community development, blames “the land rush on the increasing demand to acquire fertile land by a corporate global minority seeking bio-fuel crops and the new frontier; the need for carbon credits [which] has now turned into a lucrative business.”50 Other experts are warning that “three-quarters of Africa’s population and two-thirds of its land are at risk.”51 In Africa, land grabs hinder sustainable development, Rights and Resources International notes that:

Of the 203 million hectares of land deals reported worldwide between 2000 and 2010, two-thirds were in Africa. The acquisitions are dispossessing millions of Africans of their land, to make way for expansive forestry and mineral projects and plantations… But international efforts at sustainable development are also threatening these areas. Biofuels are made from crops that are often planted on former forest or marsh land, and carbon-offset projects can result in the eviction of inhabitants of wooded areas that are bought up in exchange for carbon credits… [T]he voluntary carbon market is… dispossessing local custodians of their lands. For example, Green Resources, a forestry company based in Oslo, has bought up hundreds of thousands of hectares of forests in Mozambique, threatening the food security and livelihoods of local populations by denying them access to their traditional lands and food sources. The company has also expanded to Uganda, Tanzania and southern Sudan. A Dutch firm’s carbon- offset project in Uganda’s Mount Elgon National Park became unmarketable after sustained conflict with local farmers who contest the group’s right to the land.52

There is a direct corollary between land grabbing in Africa and emerging climate policy based on offsets in Northern countries and at the UN. Even a carbon trader publication like Point Carbon acknowledged that: “The mere prospect of deforestation credits being recognized in a new US climate bill has been enough to spark a REDD land grab in Central Africa.”53

To understand how REDD is emerging as a significant driver of past and present massive land grabs in Africa, it is useful to identify two distinct phases of land grabbing. In the first phase, land was grabbed mostly for plantations, export crops and agrofuels. In the second phase, land was grabbed for these purposes as well as for carbon credits and REDD. But since REDD’s scope has expanded to include plantations, soils, agriculture and all landscapes and ecosystems, all the land grabbed in the first phase can also now become REDD projects. For example, in Mozambique, “[e]xisting large-scale plantations in Niassa and Nampula are also taking advantage of REDD+ and the Clean Development Mechanism, by seeking to certify the plantations as carbon sinks, thus generating more profit for the investors.”54

Furthermore, there are financial, political and legal incentives to do so because if a tree plantation or an export flower farm or a jatropha agrofuel operation gets REDD credits, it adds an additional source of income, subsidies, legal recognition and certification, and can even cloak itself in the legitimacy of supposedly saving the climate.

Thus, REDD simultaneously reinforces past land grabs by making them more profitable, legal and legitimate; drives land grabs for carbon credits in and of themselves; and drives new land grabs for these other activities that are “REDD-able” as well. Vast tracts of Africa are also being labeled “unused” and “degraded” to justify land grabbing.

In Tanzania, for example, “the draft National REDD strategy justifies the classification of 49 % of forests as being on general land by stating that, ‘General Land as used here means all public land which is not reserved or village land including unoccupied or unused village land.’ On the same page, the strategy also states, ‘Forests in General Land are ‘open access’, characterized by unsecured land tenure, shifting cultivation, annual wild fires, harvesting of wood fuel, poles and timber, and heavy pressure for conversion to other competing land uses, such as agriculture, livestock grazing, settlements and industrial development.’ Confusingly, in these two definitions, land that communities use for agriculture, harvesting of wood products, grazing and even settlement is defined as ‘unused’.”55

The Ecologist reports that the lack of forest definition is a ‘major obstacle’ in the fight to protect rainforests: “ambiguous forest definitions are putting the future success of forest protection schemes in doubt and allowing logging companies to destroy biodiverse habitats. The current lack of a working definition of what degraded forest or land is ‘plays into the hands’ of logging companies, say forest campaigners. The companies claim to responsibly develop ‘only on degraded land’, but in reality this can actually mean they are clearing forests and peatlands.”56

According to Isilda Nhantumbo, a Mozambican expert at the pro-REDD International Institute for Environment and Development and former consultant with the World Bank, REDD may create generations of landless people. “REDD+ is now driving a race for land in Mozambique…British capital wants to ‘invest’ in REDD+ projects. The total area identified is 150,000 km2, equivalent to 15 million ha. or 19% of the country’s surface. The selection of areas for this private ‘investment’ was based on the proposed REDD+ pilots”. Ms. Nhamtumbo asks: “Am I witnessing the creation of generations of landless people in Mozambique and Africa in general?”57

It is a question worth asking. Carbon trading companies have applied for rights to one-third of Mozambique, to sell REDD credits.58 More than 40% of Cameroon’s forests – almost 20% of the country – may be slated for REDD- type projects.59 In Liberia, 20% forests were almost grabbed for a billionaire carbon scam.60 According to Reuters, an Australian carbon trading company claimed to have signed a contract to do REDD in all of the 2,345,000 square kilometers of the entire national territory of Democratic Republic of Congo,61 which was subsequently declared illegal. This incident serves to illustrate the dishonesty and ambition of some carbon traders.62 These percentages while staggering, may be just the tip of the REDD iceberg given the lack of disclosure which is typical of such dealings. The actual amount of land being grabbed for carbon trading may be much greater.