An international non-governmental organisation which campaigns for the rights of indigenous peoples who use traditional methods of making their living is challenging the way in which a project designed to combat climate change is being implemented across vast tracts of northern Kenya.
The challenge by the London-based campaign group, Survival International, is just the latest development in renewed focus by rights groups on the way in which the rights of indigenous peoples in Africa are impacted by schemes to combat the rising global temperatures which are fuelling destructive climate crisis.
The Kenyan project, launched a decade ago by an NGO known as the Northern Rangelands Trust, seeks to change the grazing methods used by pastoralists in order to reduce carbon emissions. The resulting "saving" of carbon is then sold by the trust as "carbon credits" in a "carbon offset" scheme.
Carbon dioxide is the most important of the greenhouse gases which prevent heat from the earth from rising into space, instead causing temperatures to increase and generating global warming. Carbon offset schemes are designed to enable the producers of carbon dioxide, typically in industrialised countries, to compensate for their excess emissions by "buying" credits from those who reduce their emissions.
The Northern Rangelands Trust (NRT) describes its carbon project as "the world's largest soil carbon removal project", which aims to remove 50 million tons of carbon dioxide over a 30-year period - the equivalent of the annual emissions from more than 10 million cars. This will, the trust says, "generate hundreds of millions of dollars for local communities." The American technology company Meta (formerly Facebook) and the film streaming service Netflix are reported to be among purchasers of credits from its project. *
The NRT said it is owned and led by 43 community conservancies run by indigenous people in Kenya and Uganda. But the trust is under fire from the London-based campaign group, Survival International, which recently released a strongly critical report entitled Blood Carbon: how a carbon offset scheme makes millions from Indigenous land in Northern Kenya.
Dispute over grazing methods
Survival said it analysed the impact of the carbon project on land inhabited by more than 100,000 indigenous Samburu, Borana and Rendille people. In its 74-page report, the author, Simon Counsell, said the project "fails to comply with some of the basic requirements for carbon offsetting projects."
Among Counsell's criticisms was that the NRT was assuming that traditional grazing methods degraded the soil. "But," he wrote, "the case that the area was being degraded through 'unplanned grazing' is not supported with any empirical evidence, and indeed the project ignores that the 'unplanned grazing' is in fact subject to traditional forms of governance which have sustained pastoralism within broadly sustainable limits for many centuries....
"The limited information provided by the project purporting to show a decline in vegetation quality prior to the project does not in fact show this at all," he added. "Evidence presented by NRT indicates that, if anything, the quality of vegetation has declined since the project started; if, as the project asserts, vegetation cover is correlated with soil carbon, this would suggest that soil carbon in much of the area is in fact also declining."
In a news release issued with the report, the Survival campaign head, Fiore Longo, averred that the NRT project "is based on the same colonial and racist misconception that pervades many big conservation projects: that Indigenous peoples are to blame for environmental destruction. But the evidence shows precisely the opposite - that Indigenous peoples are the best conservationists."
In a response to the Survival report, the indigenous Borana people of Kenya disowned the NRT project, then - in a development which Borana leaders link to the release of the report - opened negotiations with the NRT.
The Borana Council of Elders, in a video statement, called on the NRT to stop trading their carbon. They accused the Trust of "habitual denial, self-cleansing and sanitising missions without responding to grave human rights violations or issues raised in inquiry reports released by human rights organisations and international organisations."
The chairperson of the Borana Council of Elders, Abdullahi Hajj Gonjobe, told AllAfrica in an interview that only after Survival International's involvement did NRT agree to disclose all their information about carbon credits and other projects.
"Survival International put us on the map"
"Survival International put us on the map and the whole world saw us, and heard what is happening to our land," he told us. "The donors started putting pressure on NRT, NRT then came back to us and promised to do the project on our terms. During our negotiation, our first request was that they register our land then we shall negotiate and they agreed. Our land is community owned, it has not been registered before and now we are in the process of registering it."
Gonjobe said that in May the NRT disclosed to a few of the community's top elders how much money it had made from selling carbon credits.
"[They] pledged that 69% of what they make will go to the community. But the amount that they claim to have sold carbon for may not be true. According to information that I got from Survival International, they made profits of over U.S. $400 million dollars. That is a challenge that we'll face when negotiating," said Gonjobe.
Gonjobe said people's rights must be protected when new projects were contemplated.
"Most people in my community are illiterate, so organisations should not take advantage of illiteracy and grab our rights, our resources. These resources are from God, they are not human made. If organisations want to trade carbon they should not grab our land, they should not monopolise... The carbon is ours, it's being collected from our place. In the manner that it is fetched, we should sit down and see that we divide equally."
Asked for comment on what Gonjobe told us, NRT's head of communications, Jeff de Kock directed allAfrica to an NRT statement describing the Survival report as "misguided, poorly researched and inaccurate on nearly all respects." The statement vigorously challenged a range of details in the Survival report (although it did not deal specifically with the allegation that changed forms of grazing did not achieve carbon savings). The statement said the project had been validated by reputable external auditors who had evaluated its benefits to wildlife and communities.
De Kock added that the trust and the Borana Council of Elders have "a working relationship". "They (the trust) support all community voices in a democratic system and the majority of the community are in strong support of the project," he said.
Controversy over previous allegations of rights abuses
Also in contention in the exchanges between Survival International and the Northern Rangelands Trust is another, earlier report reflecting disputes between groups defending indigenous peoples and those promoting what they say are development projects.
In 2021 the NRT was strongly criticised by the California-based Oakland Institute, which describes itself as a supporter of those who defend their lands and livelhoods against "powerful actors - governments, 'development' institutions, private equity funds and corporations" - to hold them accountable for land theft and human rights abuses."
In a report which Oakland said revealed "the devastating impact of privatised and neo-colonial wildlife conservation and safari tourism on indigenous pastoralist communities", it raised concerns about issues in Isiolo, Samburu, Marsabit and Laikipia counties in northern Kenya such as community participation in community-based wildlife conservancies, livestock grazing rights, land tenure arrangements and security risks.
The NRT has since accused the Oakland report of "knowingly repeat[ing] long-discredited claims of land grabbing and human rights abuses..." Oakland's claims, the NRT said, have been "investigated and disproved" by the Kenyan national government, county governments and a report drawn up by a Kenyan legal academic, Dr. Kanyinke Sena, who formerly chaired the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.
(Both Survival International and the Oakland Institute have in turn rejected the NRT's criticisms of their reports. Survival said earlier this year that there are "key omissions... lies and misrepresentations" in the trust's statement , which it said had failed to address most of their key concerns. In 2022 the Oakland Institute described Dr Sena's report as reflecting a "sham investigation" and "a shameful attempt to cover up the accusations of land grabbing and human rights abuses in the name of conservation...")
"Blood Carbon" campaign
The release of the Survival report marked the launch of what the group calls its Blood Carbon campaign, in which it opposes the sale of carbon credits from areas set aside for indigenous peoples on the grounds that they "could massively increase the funding of human rights abuses against indigenous peoples, while doing nothing to combat climate crisis".
"Experience shows," said Survival International, "that the millions made from carbon credits won't go to the communities in whose lands that carbon is being absorbed or stored. Developing carbon projects in protected areas will massively increase conservation industry funding, [and is] likely to fuel a huge expansion and militarisation of protected areas. In practice, money supposedly going to 'climate mitigation' will be used to evict people from their lands and fund rangers' salaries and military equipment used to commit human rights violations against Indigenous people."
AllAfrica has carried numerous reports in recent years of resistance by indigenous communities to schemes whose proponents say they are development projects but whose opponents say they are destructive of people's habitats.
Indigenous peoples resist "development"
For example, murder, rape, arson, immolating children and mutilating corpses are among some of the rights abuses allegedly carried out against indigenous people by the military and forest rangers in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo between 2019 and 2021.
Radio France Internationale has reported on findings by Minority Rights Group International (MRG), that the attacks were part of efforts to clear out the native Batwa (pygmy) people from their ancestral land. They live on part of the Kahuzi Biega Park, which is a haven for endangered gorillas and one of the DR Congo's biggest tourist attractions.
The Ogiek, an indigenous community in Kenya, have faced displacement over generations since the colonial era. After failing to win redress in national courts, they took their case to the African Court on Human and People's Rights, which in 2022 ordered the government of Kenya to pay compensation of approximately U.S. $488,000, for material prejudice for loss of property and natural resources, and a further 100,000,000 Shillings for moral prejudice suffered by Ogiek people, "due to violations of the right to non-discrimination, religion, culture and development," according to the UN human rights office, OHCHR.
In Cameroon, a 2016 report by Survival International accused the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) of funding and supporting anti-poaching units in Cameroon which were accused of human rights abuses, including torture and the extrajudicial killings of indigenous Baka people. The WWF commissioned an independent review of its practices, acknowledged abuses by rangers and has since published updates of action it has taken.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Recognition of Indigenous Peoples' rights
While there is still much work to be done to address the challenges faced by indigenous peoples in Africa, there is a growing recognition of their rights, and some positive steps have been taken at both the national and regional levels.
One significant development is the adoption of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights , recognising the rights of indigenous peoples in Africa. In 2016, the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights adopted a resolution on the rights of indigenous peoples in Africa, which calls for the recognition and protection of their land and resource rights, among other things.
Some African countries have taken steps to recognise and protect the rights of indigenous peoples. For example, in Kenya, the government established a task force to look into the Ogiek people's rights in response to an earlier judgement of the African Court of Human and Peoples Rights.
In Uganda, the government has established a policy on the protection and promotion of the rights of indigenous peoples , which includes provisions on land and resource rights, traditional knowledge, and cultural heritage.
Several organisations and initiatives work to support the rights of indigenous peoples in Africa. For instance, the Indigenous Peoples of Africa Coordinating Committee (IPACC) is a network of indigenous organisations that advocate for their rights and promote their participation in decision-making processes.
The African Union (AU) and CIVICUS, a global alliance of civil society organisations, are working together to advance the cause of land rights in Africa, with the goal of promoting sustainable development, reducing poverty, and ensuring social justice for all.
CIVICUS advocacy and campaigns officer Paul Mulindwa told AllAfrica in an interview that " because of the current and cross-cutting issues of environmental justice, and climate change, we find indigenous peoples at the crossroads or caught in the web of governance and development... land evictions, and land grabbing."
CIVICUS uses the leverage of its power to convene forums to give indigenous peoples "a platform to air their views, but also to engage with policymakers, government and political actors, to ensure their issues are managed, handled, and addressed", said Mulindwa.
He added that CIVICUS held a meeting towards the end of 2022 with some actors in Kenya focusing on indigenous peoples, where concerns including the Borana issue were raised. "There are about 15 indigenous groups facing similar challenges, including the Baringo, Sengwer, Endorois and Ogiek, but due to limited resources, we have not had a concrete intervention with Borana."
Unfortunately, the plight of the Borana people is not isolated, he said, and he called on African governments to "have a listening ear that can bring some of these issues to a discussion and forge a way forward for everyone".
