Page Title

Climate change is an issue of global concern and one of the major developmental issues facing Zimbabwe. The Metrological Service Department of Zimbabwe has estimated that minimum temperatures have risen by 2.6 degrees and rainfall has declined by 5%, showing changing weather patterns over the past century. Climate change is already causing flooding, heat waves, and droughts worldwide. There has been a call for implementing climate change mitigation and adaptation measures. Africa is at the centre of these measures, such as forest carbon sequestration projects, involving protecting the trees at risk of being chopped down in exchange for payment to the landowner. Cameroon, Kenya, Mozambique, Uganda, and Zambia are some of the countries that have adopted carbon sequestration projects (Pagop & Savard, 2024; Leach & Scoones, 2014).  Another mitigation measure is forest carbon offsetting, including afforestation or reforestation, avoided conversion, and improved forest management (Leach & Scoones, 2014).  Three-quarters of the offset projects in 2022 took place in developing countries (Siele, 2024), mostly initiated by companies in the Global North. These projects have a dual effect: they conserve massive tracts of forests, while reducing carbon emissions and offsetting emissions caused by other countries. Green grabbing is the appropriation of land and resources for environmental conservation or climate change mitigation. Scholars like Fairhead et al. (2012:1) explain that green grabbing “builds on well-known histories of colonial and neo-colonial resource alienation in the name of the environment…..involving commodification and markets for pieces and aspects of nature.”

Zimbabwe finds itself in the conundrum of both being affected by climate change and being a potential source of mitigation measures. Several measures have been put in place to mitigate the effects of climate change. These measures include forest carbon sequestration, investments in lithium mining, renewable solar energy, conservation agriculture, and new legislation (Tabelin et al., 2021; Jenniffer, 2023; O'Dell et al., 2020). The Zimbabwean government has also embraced carbon sequestration projects in partnerships with foreign investors as part of the mitigation measures. The latest among these state-driven carbon-trading projects is the September 23 acquisition of 7.5 million hectares (a fifth of the country's landmass) of forest in Binga by the United Arab Emirates-based Blue Carbon Blanket.

 

Binga, which is primarily communal land, is home to the indigenous minority, the BaTonga people, whose population is around 300,000 (Jeniffer, 2023). Binga is characterised by inhospitable climate conditions that make it drought-prone. The livelihood of the BaTongas (also known as the river people) depends on fishing and the production of non-timber forest products (NTFPs). For the BaTonga, farming is a recent livelihood, and the community has mainly remained “a migrant farming community in a chronic liminality condition” (Cliggette, 2014). In the face of carbon credit deals, the BaTonga are facing resource dispossession, where their livelihoods depend on the resources earmarked for the carbon sequestration projects. In rural communities in Zimbabwe, women bear the burden of social reproduction roles (Ossome & Naidu, 2021). Women gather, sell wild fruits by the roadside, and use firewood from the forest (Mudekwe, 2017; Thebe, 2017), to which they now have been prohibited access due to climate change mitigation projects. These occupy an essential part of their day-to-day lives and ease the burden on the women's reproduction capacities.

 

Against this background, the paper focuses on understanding the institutional and policy framework guiding carbon offset projects and how they undermine communities. This paper attempts to answer the question of the effectiveness of policy and legal framework protecting local communities involved in carbon credits. The paper argues that the existing legal and policy frameworks are Statutory Instrument SI 150 of 2023, Constitution of Zimbabwe, Section 73 and the climate change management bill to be soon turned into law. Zimbabwe has also ratified global and international treaties and conventions, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto Protocol in 2009 and the Paris Agreement in 2015.

 

Methodological Reflections

The paper utilises secondary data sources, involving a systematic review of various documents including online sources, government and international reports, published journals and books. Some of the policy documents reviewed include the Zimbabwe Climate Change Management draft bill, Zimbabwe National Development Strategy 1, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Paris Agreement, Sustainable Development initiatives and agreements. Some of the dominant themes that emerged from the systematic review are the livelihood benefits of the schemes and benefit sharing, environmental conservation and sustainability, community participation and empowerment, institutional and policy framework issues, conflict and social-cultural issues. The review concentrated on the themes relevant to this paper: institutional policy frameworks and their effectiveness. The data from these sources was triangulated, drawing themes and conclusions on Zimbabwe’s institutional and policy terrain of forest carbon sequestration projects.

Institutional and policy terrain

Zimbabwe has ratified and acceded to international climate change adaptation, mitigation and financing instruments, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992, the Kyoto Protocol in 2009, the Paris Agreement in 2015 and the Sustainable Development Goals 2030 Agenda (SDG), where goal number 13 on climate action has been prioritised in the National Development Strategy (NDS 1). Noteworthy is that the carbon offset projects and the other projects in Zimbabwe are ratified under the Paris Agreement. Despite this commitment to international treaties, citizens must learn more about these provisions; at the moment, they need an understanding of the principles, including the provisions of the instruments.

 

To complement these treaties at the country level, Zimbabwe has made environmental and climate change issues an essential part of the legal and policy terrain. In terms of the law, the Constitution of Zimbabwe, Section 73 takes the realisation of the rights to the environment and ways the environment should be protected for sustainable development. In 2023, a Statutory Instrument SI 150 of 2023 was introduced to regulate carbon credit trading projects; before that, the projects implemented in Zimbabwe were not regulated. Following this, in 2024, the Zimbabwean government has made significant strides in advancing the development of the Climate Change Management Bill. This legislative initiative represents a critical step in the country's efforts to address the growing challenges posed by climate change. The bill, once finalized, is expected to be enacted into law, providing a comprehensive legal framework to guide climate action, enhance environmental sustainability, and promote resilience against climate-related risks. The proposed bill is being developed through inclusive participation by various actors to capture the diverse perspectives of all stakeholders. The bill focuses on eight principles that are meant to promote low-carbon development. These principles capture mitigation and adaptation, financing, measuring, reporting and verification, establishing designated National Authority on Carbon Trading, Benefits sharing, National Climate Finance, Green House Gas Emission Standards and Gender Mainstreaming.

 

Of the eight principles on the proposed bill, two are most pertinent to this paper: principle four focuses on establishing a Designated National Authority (DNA), and principle five is on benefit sharing. The bill has raised questions regarding the emphasis on carbon credit projects. Sceptics worry about the duties and roles of the proposed DNA on carbon credits, raising questions on whether it will not duplicate the roles of the Environmental Management Authority, which is already a regulatory body. Other questions are raised on the benefit-sharing mechanisms in the carbon schemes and whether the benefits will trickle down to the communities where the projects are situated. Additionally, it raises questions on whether the project components will adhere to best practices or if it is an extension of the neoliberal agenda through carbon projects. However, some best practices can be drawn from earlier community-based natural resources management projects, such as the country's Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE), which has noted the best practices for environmental and wildlife conversation that have benefitted the communities in Zimbabwe (Taylor,2009; Peter et al., 2008).

The Government of Zimbabwe has also mainstreamed climate issues, making them central to national development strategies. Other national provisions include the National Climate Change Policy, National Adaptation Plan and National Climate Strategy. These frameworks provide a road map for implementing climate action by 2030, and USD 15 billion is needed for climate financing to achieve this 2030 agenda. Despite these sound institutional and policy frameworks, climate action needs more financing. There is consensus that a lack of institutional capacity has limited the participation of African countries in existing climate change mitigation programs (Adenle et al., 2017). Criticisms have also focused on the lack of decentralised offices to deal with these issues; climate financing in Zimbabwe is managed and administered using a top-down bureaucratic manner that has often coupled with allegations of corruption. Decentralised governance, which includes creating and making emerging markets locally relevant through participation and coordination, can address climate change (Zulu et al.,2020).

Green grabbing in the name of forest carbon offsetting

Before the SI 150 of 2023 was promulgated, forest carbon offset projects needed to be regulated and registered with rural district councils and traditional community leaders. The acquisition of land by Blue Carbon in Binga needed to have been preceded by more consultation with the community, which had been the custodians of the land. The forest carbon project in Binga is still in its early stages, and stakeholders are optimistic about the potential benefits. However, grassroots organisations are unsure of these benefits, especially since the process of the acquisition of 7.5 million hectares of land by Blue Carbon was unclear and lacked a participatory consultative process. There is a need for engagement or consultation on the forests to be earmarked for the projects (Hlatywayo & Mangongera,2020; Nyama & Mukwada,2023). This has been the trend in most African countries where there is exclusion of the indigenous communities. In Kenya, similar trends have also been noticed, such as a lack of consultation among the  Masaai people, known for pastoralism, resulting in clashes between the project managers and the local community (Siele, 2024). Traditional and Indigenous groups are rarely consulted about carbon credit projects and have viewed it as a gold rush on their lands in the Amazon (Schrasmki & Neto, 2023)

 

The project involves protecting carbon and the resources in the trees that are in the

area, resulting in restricted access to the resources. In Binga, community members are no longer allowed access to the forest resources that have been part of their livelihoods. Additionally, the benefits from the projects have yet to reach the community. In this regard, forest carbon projects are a new form of green grabbing (Scoones, 2024) and an expansion of the neoliberal agenda through climate change mitigation. The idea of preserving already underutilised forests that are not posing a risk of deforestation to offset emissions elsewhere leaves questions on who benefits from the practices. Countries can continue with emissions elsewhere while hiding in the blanket of sequestration through massive forests in Zimbabwe and Africa. The commodification of carbon is at the centre of climate change mitigation, where communities on the periphery with no voice are caught in the mix, and the forests are not delivering the claimed climate benefits. Paradoxically, with so much rush in preserving forests, there are questions surrounding the real benefits of preserving forests. A recent study by Macintosh et al., (2024) showed that the forests in Australia were not regenerating as anticipated, and experienced negligible change in vegetation cover.

 

Forest carbon projects elsewhere have shown that the benefits are not reaching the anticipated communities as envisaged (Macintosh et al., 2024). This results in an imbalance in benefit sharing from the projects where community members are not benefitting. Essential questions were raised on whether the resources will trickle down to the community level as envisioned. Political capture and corruption have been central to many projects in Zimbabwe (Chipato et al., 2020). There needs to be more development in Binga District which are impeded by the various conservation projects in the area (Matsa et al., 2023). The area needs better infrastructure, more health institutions and schools, and people walk long distances to access services. The project alienates the community from the natural environment, which forms their livelihood base. The livelihoods of communities in Binga are intricately tied to the natural resources provided by local forests, which sustain activities such as foraging for wild fruits, hunting, cattle grazing, and gathering firewood. These practices are not only central to their daily subsistence but also form the foundation of their cultural and economic systems. However, the recent designation of these forests for carbon sequestration initiatives has imposed restrictions on access to these critical resources, raising concerns about the potential socio-economic impacts on the local population.

As the implementation of the sequestration project progresses, it is imperative to conduct further research to comprehensively understand its implications for the livelihoods of Binga people. Such research should focus on assessing the extent to which restricted access to forest resources affects food security, income generation, and overall well-being. Additionally, it is essential to explore viable alternatives or compensatory mechanisms that can mitigate adverse effects while ensuring the success of the sequestration project.This has been termed a new 'carbon colonialism', where it has resulted in the possibility of livelihood disruption for indigenous communities (Adebayo, 2024). In contrast, in some communities in Kenya, these schemes are beneficial, as community members have improved their livelihoods (Lungat, 2023). This is attributed to the fact that Kenyan laws are proactive and support minorities; a case in point is the Ogiek people, who won a case against the Kenyan government at the African Court on Human and People’s Rights in 2012 to avoid Evictions and they recognised as Indigenous communities with rights.

 

In Binga, resistance is mainly covert, where the community members discuss these schemes on their own, voicing their concerns when they meet without necessarily taking a stand or organising themselves to resist this grabbing. The community members are still indifferent and need to figure out the outcomes of this project imposed on them. Though important, these everyday forms of resistance often lead to little or no policy change and impact broader struggles on green grabbing, which can be ongoing (Scott, 1985; O’Brien, 2007). Local communities need to understand these carbon credit schemes and the top-down nature in which they are administered, which is exclusionary of the communities. In some parts of Africa, these forest carbon sequestration projects have been met with resistance, showing the communities have agency. Pastoralists in Kenya have been clashing with the managers of carbon credit schemes, highlighting that the projects have damaging consequences for the communities (Siele, 2024). In Zimbabwe, this has not yet materialized.

 

 

Conclusion

Forest carbon sequestration deals and transactions are taking centre stage in climate change mitigation, with most countries entering deals with Sub-Saharan African countries. It is still new to understand the consequences of these endeavours. However, they are guided by a solid institutional and policy trajectory, including the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. The institutional and policy frameworks guiding climate action in Zimbabwe are comprehensive, and the country has ratified global treaties. Zimbabwe is also working on a climate change bill that will soon be enacted. Despite government commitments, citizen exclusion and lack of awareness about climate treaties hinder effective implementation and inclusivity. A new scramble for Africa’s carbon resources is looming, and little is known about these deals, with no consultative processes for the indigenous community. The current rush on the forests' carbon credits is called 'carbon colonialism’ or 'green grabbing', where these terms cite negative connotations of the projects, whereas, on the other hand, proponents view it as an essential part of climate action. The state and investors have the upper hand, neglecting minority communities in these transactions. It is too early to understand the livelihood implications on the indigenous communities; however, the lack of participation in the deals shows the exclusion of local communities.

References

Ademola A. Adenle, Dale T. Manning, Joseph Arbiol, (2017). Mitigating Climate Change in Africa: Barriers to Financing Low-Carbon Development, World Development, Volume 100, Pages 123-132,

Chipato,F., Wang,L., Zuo,T., & Mudimu, G, T., (2020). The politics of youth struggles for land in post-land reform Zimbabwe, Review of African Political Economy, DOI: 10.1080/03056244.2020.1730781

Cliggette, L., (2014). Access, alienation, and the production of chronic liminality: sixty years of frontier settlement in a Zambian park buffer zone. Hum. Organ 73, 128–140.https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.73.2.2327j3162561461v.

Fairhead, J., Leach, M., & Scoones, I. (2012). Green grabbing: a new appropriation of nature? The Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(2), 237–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2012.671770

Hlatywayo, G. K., & Mangongera, C. (2020). The challenges for social movements in post-Mugabe Zimbabwe. United States Institute of Peace.

Jennifer, L. (2023). South Pole Cuts Ties with Zimbabwe Carbon Offset Project Kariba, https://carboncredits.com/south-pole-cuts-ties-with-zimbabwe-carbon-offset-project-kariba/

Langat, A.(2023).Carbon credit dollars stir up communities in Kenya. New internationalist, https://newint.org/features/2023/07/17/carbon-credit-dollars-stir-communities-kenya-decolonizehow

Leach, M & Scoones, I. ( 2013). Carbon forestry in West Africa: The politics of models, measures and verification processes, Global Environmental Change, Volume 23, Issue 5, Pages 957-967

Matsa, M, M., Mupepi, Hove, J., Dzawanda,B., (2024). Binga's VaTonga communities involvement in Zambezi River fishery resource harvesting and management, Scientific African, Volume 23

Mudekwe, J. (2017). Forest resource use patterns in a protected forest reserve in western Zimbabwe- the case of fuller protected forest. International Journal of Bio-resource and Stress Management, 8(Apr, 2), pp. 346–359.

Nyama, V., & Mukwada, G. (2023). Factors affecting citizen participation in local development planning in Murewa District, Zimbabwe. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 58(3), 421-437.

O’Brien, K. J., & Lianjiang, L. (2007). Tactical Escalation in Rural China. Études Rurales, (179), 169–192. https://doi.org/10.4000/etudesrurales.8474

O'Dell, D., Eash, N.S., Hicks, B.B., Oetting, J.N., Sauer, T.J., Lambert, D.M.,..Goddard,J.J.(2020).Conservation agriculture as a climate mitigation in Zimbabwe.International Journal of Agriculture Sustainability,18(3) 250–265.https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2020.1750254

Ossome, L., & Naidu, S. C. (2021). Does Land Still Matter? Gender and Land Reforms in Zimbabwe. Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy, 10(2), 344–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/22779760211029176

Pagop S. C., & Savard. L., (2024). Voluntary carbon markets in Africa: a deep dive into opportunities and challenges. Policy paper.Policy Center.https://www.policycenter.ma/sites/default/files/2024-04/PP_05-24%20%28Sabrina%20Camelia%20Pagop%20%26%20Luc%20Savard%29.pdf

Peter G.H. Frost, Ivan Bond. (2008). The CAMPFIRE programme in Zimbabwe: Payments for wildlife services, Ecological Economics, Volume 65, Issue 4, Pages 776-787,

Schramski,S.  and Neto.C,P ,(2023). Carbon Cowboys, Chasing Emissions  Offsets in the Amazon Keep Forest- Dwelling Communities in the Dark.Inside Climate News. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/28112023/carbon -cowboys-keep-amazon-communities-dark/

Scoones, I (2024).Zimbabwe as the new carbon frontier: dangers ahead. Zimbabwe land.https://zimbabweland.wordpress.com/2024/04/22/zimbabwe-as-the-new-carbon-frontier-dangers-ahead/ (Blog)

Scott, J.C. (1985). Weapons of the weak: everyday forms of peasant resistance.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Siele, M, K, N., (2024). Communities in Kenya are fighting a carbon project that sold credits to Meta and Netflix.Semafor. https://www.semafor.com/article/05/07/2024/kenya-fight-carbon-credits-meta-netflix

Smith. J., & Scherr.S .,(2002), Forest carbon and local livelihoods: assessment of opportunities and policy recommendations, Environmental Science, Economics, DOI:10.17528/CIFOR/001086

Taylor, R.(2009). Community-based natural resource management in Zimbabwe: the experience of CAMPFIRE. Biodivers Conserv 18, 2563–2583. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-009-9612-8

Thebe, V. (2017). Defenders of the woods? Women and the complex dynamics of a worker-peasantry in western Zimbabwe. South African Review of Sociology, 48(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/21528586.2016.1219968

Thomas, D.S.G., Twyman, C., Osbahr, H., Hewitson, B., (2007). Adaptation to climate change and variability: farmer responses to intra-seasonal precipitation trends in South Africa Climatic Change. Climate Research 83, 301e322.

Tienhaara, K. (2012). “The Potential Perils of Forest Carbon Contracts for Developing Countries: Cases from Africa.” Journal of Peasant Studies 39 (2): 551–572.

Zulu, L.C., Kamoto, J.F.M., Djenontin, I.N.S., Mbanze, A.A., Kambanje, C., Katerere, Y. (2020). Governance and Institutional Arrangements for Sustainable Management of Miombo Woodlands. In: Ribeiro, N.S., Katerere, Y., Chirwa, P.W., Grundy, I.M. (eds) Miombo Woodlands in a Changing Environment: Securing the Resilience and Sustainability of People and Woodlands. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50104-4_5