Jiwoh Abulai, Environment and Climate Change Minister of Sierra Leone talks 30x30, land rights, carbon credits, climate finance, and more.
You've recently come out of regional meetings on the so-called 30x30 plan to designate 30% of the world's lands and oceans as protected areas by 2030. How does Sierra Leone reach this goal?
Sierra Leone is a small country with natural assets that have degraded over time. To achieve the 30x30 goal, we need to set aside some more areas to be protected. We need to protect existing areas that are in good shape. And we need to restore areas that have been degraded. To do implement that effectively, we need a couple of things: partners and finance.
What kinds of partners? To do what?
Our forests usually have communities that live in them or close by. Those are the first partners. For projects to work, they need to be about more than the restoration or protection of nature but also macroeconomic policy for local communities. They are stewards of the forest and if they are not stakeholders, it doesn't work.
The second partner for us is the university system. They have researchers who understand these ecosystems. Third are external partners such as international conservation organisations like Conservation International and the World Wildlife Fund. We have some expertise domestically but we can benefit a lot from the expertise of these organisations.
Indigenous and local communities often accuse governments and those big conservation organisations of giving mere lip service to their rights. Some have warned 30x30 will see the biggest land grab in history. They point out that 80% of biodiversity is in areas governed by indigenous groups yet just 6% of protected areas in Africa are under their management. How will you ensure your government does things differently?
In the majority of Sierra Leone, indigenous people are the custodians of the land. You cannot practically protect areas without them. If they don't see any benefits from protection of the land, it doesn't work. There is no option of protecting land and moving them aside. We need a macroeconomic intervention that means protecting the land and its ecosystem brings more benefits than consuming it. Where there is degradation, it is where indigenous people are consuming the land.
And how do you do that? Can you as environment minister instigate wide-scale macroeconomic interventions?
What we're now designing and starting to roll out by the end of the year is a nationwide ecosystem restoration programme. The first step is to get the local communities involved. Many of these communities have knowledge about local ecosystems and we want to use indigenous species. We need an economic intervention that brings jobs to people in these communities and helps not just restore nature but maintains the restoration.
The second thing is to understand what has caused the degradation. People use these forests for fuel to cook and for timber. That means that any sort of restoration has to make provision for these two activities. Wood lots need to be created so communities still have wood. We need to get them more efficient cookstoves.
Other ministries are very interested in this plan. The Minister of Tourism is keen to restore ecosystems and really wants to push tourism because we have lots of plant and animal species that are attractive to tourists. The water ministry is also interested because the areas we're going to restore or protect house most of the water catchment areas in the country. Protecting these ecosystems is a matter of water security, which at some point becomes a national security issue. The Minister of Agriculture is also very interested in these water catchment areas because of their importance for the flagship Feed Salone programme. Protecting nature will be a collaboration across ministries, local government, multiple industries, and agencies.
A recent in-depth evaluation of the Gola Rainforest project, Sierra Leone's flagship conservation project, found that it had not stopped deforestation - though it slowed it - and that communities did not see any improvement in their economic wellbeing. What lessons have you learnt from this?
One thing about the Gola Forest is that people in the communities still own it. They're the major shareholders, represented by paramount chiefs. Gola just sold some carbon at end of last year that's going to be deposited in a couple of weeks. That means there has been increase in the budget that is split multiple ways. Part of it goes to managing the Gola project. Some share goes to different community-based projects. Some share goes to land-owning families. Other income goes to livelihood programmes, which are mostly agricultural projects. I'm going to Gola next weekend so that I can interact with these communities and get first-hand accounts of how things are going.
Are you surprised communities' economic wellbeing has not improved in five years?
When you do an analysis like that, it's probably best to compare with other communities who may have seen a decline. Those communities may be consuming the forests and degrading the land, leading to things getting progressively worse. One of main reasons I'm visiting Gola is to have these conversations and, from there, understand what the issues are. But these communities are economic agents and if their lives are not better, it will not work.
The Gola project is an example of a carbon offsetting scheme, which some groups have called a "scam" and others "pollution permits". There has been some alarm recently at Liberia granting conservation rights over 10% of its land for carbon credit schemes, Zimbabwe 20%, and similar deals elsewhere. Is Sierra Leone open to such deals?
It depends how they're structured. I don't want there to be a massive land grab. Carbon credits should not be a mechanism for 21st century colonisation. Any agreements with other parties have to be in the economic interests of Sierra Leone and especially communities that live close to these forests. We're not really pushing for a large deal. What we really want to focus on is getting funding for restoring ecosystems. We're in the process of developing climate legislation, which will include a carbon trading mechanism. We want to make sure that with any carbon trading, the lion's share of benefits go to communities in this forest.
How much finance do you need for your plans and from where?
We are putting together a programme now which we will eventually cost and try to attract finance for. For now, we have seed finance - $20 million from the Global Environment Facility's Least Developed Countries Fund, $25 million for coastal resilience from the Green Climate Fund - but nowhere near what we will need for the scale of ecosystem restoration necessary. Our plan is to target low hanging fruit to begin with so we can create clear success stories that will hopefully help us to raise additional financing. We'll also be looking at multilateral banks, foundations, large international conservation organisations, and others.
More broadly, what are your hopes regarding climate finance at COP29?
Let's start with loss and damage. Sierra Leone is seeing massive amounts of coastal erosion, while some islands are sinking as sea levels rise. We will need to see like real commitments from the international community, especially the people who caused this problem, and see them actually honour their commitments. For us, it's not abstract. Climate change and its effects are real. We see them every single day. There have been some commitments to the Loss and Damage Fund but nowhere close to the amount needed.
Adaptation is a huge need for us. Climate change has disrupted agriculture, the primary economic activity for a majority of Sierra Leoneans. We are looking for more financing for adaptation projects such as in climate smart agriculture so people in these communities who have seen the yields drop considerably may be able to raise their standards of living. Climate change has created a downward spiral in which yields drop and then people consume the forest more, leading to a second order effect on the agriculture and so on.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Given the Global North's reluctance to commit the sums needed, how can you achieve these commitments diplomatically?
These negotiations can be frustrating. It seems they have discount factors on people's lives. When we enter negotiations, we're not negotiating some abstract concepts. The reality for us is climate change affects the lives of our people. We need to stop thinking that we have different discount factors based on geography. In almost every other case when people price things in economics, you pay for it. You pay for the value that you get. In the case of climate change, some countries have emitted but not paid for it for centuries, and now we are socialising the costs. Countries like Sierra Leone are paying the price of these for the emissions even though they're not getting any of the benefits.
Going into COP29, we will be looking after the interests of our people. Some interests want progress to keep going slow, but we have an emergency here. I think we still have time but the window is closing fast. When people talk about 1.5 degrees rise, we're already there. When we go to these multinational conferences, we are there to sound the alarm. Don't wait until it gets to your doorstep. By that time, it will be too late for all of us.
James Wan is the editor of African Arguments. He is an elected member of the African Studies Association-UK council and a fellow of the Wits University China-Africa Reporting Project. He is the former Acting Editor of African Business Magazine and Senior Editor at Think Africa Press. He has written for Aljazeera, New Humanitarian, BBC, The Guardian (UK) and other outlets.
