The carbon credits dispute

Feb 19, 2023 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – The indigenous communities of Guyana should refuse to accept the payments which are being offered to them by the government from the proceeds of the sale of carbon credits. But they are not likely to do so.

The carbon credits scheme is a vulgarity. This column has explained that is an unethical practice, allowing polluters to buy their way out of meeting their greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.

This column has described the carbon credit scheme as environmental prostitution. How it works is that companies in the developed world are required to reduce their emissions by a certain level. But instead of doing this they can opt for what is known as offsets, that is, they can invest in some environmental scheme in developing countries and earn credits for doing so and then use these credits to offset they emission reduction targets.

This is exactly what the oil companies are doing. They are paying Guyana for carbon credits so that they do not have to reduce their emissions. Guyana’s forests capture and store carbon and by doing so the country earns credits. Guyana then sells these credits to companies which can trade them or use them to meet their reduced emissions targets.

The rich countries and their companies can buy their way towards meeting their emission reduction targets rather than actually reducing emissions. They can continue to pollute and pay countries such as Guyana to maintain their forests.

The carbon credits scheme is akin to a man paying another man to lose weight for him. Instead of the first man losing the weight, he pays the second man to lose weight. This is environmental prostitution at its best and is a market mechanism which has been developed to allow emitters to avoid reducing emissions.

The indigenous communities should not be part and parcel of this money-making scheme by the PPPC government which is being disguised as an environmental policy. The Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS) has long been criticized as being a financing scheme rather and an environmental strategy.

One indigenous group is objecting to the payments which they government will make to the more than 200 indigenous communities in Guyana. But the group is not doing so on ethical considerations. It is doing so on the basis that it was not consulted on the process, that the Toshao’s have no mandate to make any decisions on behalf of their indigenous communities and that the principle of free prior and informed consent has been violated in government’s plans to disburse payments.

The issue of free prior and informed consent does not arise. This principle applies to policies that affect the well-being of indigenous communities. Free prior and informed consent is concerned with actions which affect the rights, land and territories of indigenous communities. They payments do not affect any of these areas. Free, prior and informed consent is not applicable in this instance. The communities are free to reject the payments, but they will not. And why should they?

The second criticism is that the Tosaho’s to whom the payments will be made are not empowered under the Amerindian Act to make such decisions – that is to receive the sums concerned.

The Village Councils cannot tell the government not to allocate sums to the village. The Village Councils can refuse such sums and can instruct the Tosahos to do so. But the acts of the government in disbursing or allocating sums to villages are not determined by the Village Councils. They have the prerogative to refuse the sums and to determine who it is to be spent for the benefit of the community.

Nor do indigenous communities have any right to determine how much the government should earn from the sale of carbon credits. The forests of Guyana are part of the national patrimony of the country. The forests are owned by all the people and not by the indigenous peoples alone. The proceeds of the carbon credits therefore belong to all of Guyana and not simply the indigenous peoples.

They may haggle over the 15% which is allocated to them. After all, they constitute slightly more than 10% of the population and are supposed to be allocated, in accordance with international conventions, some 17% of Guyana’s territory. Since they reside primarily in the forested hinterland, they can make out a strong case of inequitable benefits sharing from the carbon credits scheme. Instead of 15%, they could press for as much as 25% of the earnings. And this perhaps is a better tactical approach.

Indigenous communities have every right to determine how the sums allocated should be spent. But experience has shown that it would be better if the government in consultation with the various Village Councils determine the spending priorities.

Bharrat Jagdeo once launched a youth empowerment scheme known as the President’s Youth Choice Initiative. More than 700 million dollars were allocated to projects determined by the young people. The initiative flopped. The same fate may befall the 15% which is going to be allocated to indigenous communities.

While the indigenous peoples have every right to determine on what the sums should be spent on, there is no guarantee that the monies will be lead to empowerment or improvement in the well-being of the recipient communities. As was the case with the President’s Youth Choice Initiative, the monies may well end up being used to pursue projects which will flop.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of this newspaper and its affiliates.)

---

• carbon, column, credits, dispute, Peeping Tom

---