REDD+ is perhaps one of the most celebrated and promising climate change mitigation programs under the UNFCCC frameworks. Touted as a ‘nature-based solution’, REDD+ has been widely propagated as a safe and prudent strategy to curb carbon emissions and mitigate climate change.
However, the implementation of REDD+ in Nigeria proved counter-productive, with adverse implications for indigenous and forest-dependent communities. REDD+ is based on a simple but critical strategy of incentivizing countries and communities to protect their forests from destruction, and in return receive ‘carbon credits’, a financial payment calculated against the carbon storage capacity of each protected forest.
The scientific principle is even simpler. Trees sequester carbon in their branches, stems, leaves, bark, and roots. They absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis and utilize it to produce carbon, which is then used to form wood. When wood decomposes or undergoes destruction (e.g., by deforestation, combustion, or decay), the carbon is released back into the atmosphere. The capacity for further carbon capturing is also eliminated, thereby intensifying greenhouse emissions and global warming.
To operationalize REDD+, the carbon market was promoted as the financial framework for its funding. Carbon credits are measurable and verifiable emission reductions from certified climate action projects. To qualify, these climate action projects must demonstrate that they reduce, avoid, or remove greenhouse gas emissions from the atmosphere. Payments based on carbon credits are made to the entity responsible for the emission reduction. In the case of REDD+, payment would go to governments or other agencies responsible for actions to preserve the forest.
In 2008, captivated by the prospect of fiscal revenues from carbon credits, the government of Cross River State in eastern Nigeria engaged the UNFCCC and commenced the implementation of the REDD+ program.
Cross River state is well known for its rich biodiversity and vast forests. It has the largest remaining pristine rainforest in Nigeria. Much of the forests have been protected against loggers by the resilience and activism of indigenous communities who live on the fringes of the forest and depend on its resources for their existence.
The allure of ‘carbon credits’ and financial gains drove the sub-national government of the state to take drastic measures on the forest. The forestry law of the state was suspended. A moratorium was placed on all forest activities including community livelihood engagements, long-standing land ownership rights of forest-dependent communities were reversed, communities were criminalized for entering their forests, and a militarized task force was empowered to ruthlessly enforce the new forest regime.
While the government expected the implementation of REDD+ and the ban on forest activities to curb illicit logging and deforestation, the reverse happened. Communities who had for generations been at the forefront of conservation were completely alienated. REDD+ operated as a high-level engagement between the government and the UNFCCC, with no input from communities.
At no time was the free, prior, and informed consent of communities sought before REDD+ was implemented; neither were there any strategies put in place for the participation of communities. With REDD+, the Cross River forests long held by the indigenous people as part of their culture, cosmogony, and heritage, became a government commodity for ‘carbon credit’.
For communities, preserving the forests for generations was the core of their tradition and part of their existence. For the government and REDD+, forest protection meant commerce and money. With REDD+ and the ban enforced, communities lost the opportunity and incentives to continue as protectors of the forests. The cost of timber in the state soared dramatically, creating the conditions for the emergence of a timber black market, aggressively supplied by illegal loggers.
Criminalized, banned from entering their forests, and impoverished, communities could do nothing to stop illegal logging. On the other hand, when REDD+ failed to immediately meet its financial promise of ‘carbon credit’, to the government, public officials who had promoted it also lost interest in the program and logging increased aggressively.
According to REDD+ officials in Cross River State, deforestation intensified and became uncontrollable in the period of REDD+. Data from REDD+ officials show that the state’s forest cover declined by 107,000 ha between 2014 and 2017, a 68,000ha difference from the 39,000ha forest loss recorded between 2000 and 2007.
Another study between 2014 and 2017 shows even more rapid forest loss. Joseph Atsu, (M, 26), a maternal indigene of Bansan community where REDD+ was implemented, decried the implications of the program’s failure. Despite the grand promises of sustainable development and community benefits, Atsu attests that REDD+ left no tangible benefits for the local population. Instead, it led to the loss of ancestral lands, livelihoods, and cultural heritage. Atsu’s testimony echoes the sentiments of indigenous persons from different communities in the State, who have borne the brunt of REDD+’s shortcomings.
The commodification of nature and climate change mitigation in Cross River State through REDD+ fundamentally altered the dynamics of forest protection and resulted in one of the fastest spates of deforestation in the world.
REDD+ in Cross River State failed because it was driven by financial considerations rather than genuine ecological concerns. The state government only engaged the program because it promised financial accruals to its treasury. REDD+ failed to see value in engaging indigenous communities in forest protection. It erroneously assumed that financial benefits could somehow replace the role of grassroots conviction and activism in forest conservation or even climate action.
The REDD+-inspired ban on forests caused a cascade of negative consequences, especially for indigenous persons. Land grabs ensued, and local communities were stripped of their access to the very resources they had responsibly managed for centuries; in countries like the DRC Congo and Uganda, there were reports of a series of rights abuses accompanied by the implementation of REDD+.
Remarkably, the agreement at the 28th Conference of Parties to phase out fossil fuels marks a crucial turning point, as the impacts of climate change intensify. It is critical to note that the urgency to reduce Co2 emissions birthed initiatives like REDD+ and other financially driven ‘market-based solutions.’ REDD+ in Cross River state clearly demonstrates the weaknesses and limitations of market-based solutions.
The transition away from fossil fuels, therefore, presents an opportunity to redefine relationships with nature. By questioning and replacing the prioritization of financial incentives that drive climate change interventions such as REDD+, it is possible to return to an era where forests and other resources were valued and protected by indigenous people as a right of nature, rather than for their carbon sinks capacity and commercial value.
In rethinking REDD+ and the commercialization of nature, an insight from Harrison Ford is a critical source of inspiration: “Nature doesn’t need people – people need nature; nature would survive the extinction of the human being and go on just fine, but human culture, human beings, cannot survive without nature”.
Embracing this awareness should foster a new approach hinged on the respect of the rights of nature, and an understanding that the future of humanity is intricately tied to the well-being of Mother Earth.
This article is part of the series written by citizen journalists of the Forest Fellowship. Learn more about the program at www.globalyouth.eu
Grace Appolos Esq, an environment and climate campaigner, at We the People, Center For Social Studies and Development, writes in from PortHarcourt, the Rivers State Capital.
NB: Opinions expressed in this article are strictly attributable to the author, Grace Appolos, and do not represent the opinion of CrossRiverWatch or any other organization the author works for/with.