Connect with us

Published

on

A massive new protected area in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) – equal to the size of France – has so far failed to include Indigenous people and local communities in its design, and appears to be a tool to promote trade rather than safeguard nature, environmentalists have warned.

Last month at the World Economic Forum (WEF), DRC President Felix Tshisekedi announced the creation of a 2,600 km-long “Green Corridor” stretching from Virunga National Park in the conflict-torn eastern region of North Kivu through the vast forests of Ituri and the Congo River to Kinshasa in the southwest and the Atlantic coast.

According to WEF, the reserve will form the world’s largest protected forest area, also a vital carbon sink as part of the Congo Basin, whose trees absorb and store planet-heating carbon dioxide.

This project aims to protect some of the most intact tropical forests on the planet, while preserving extraordinary biodiversity, including some iconic species that are very unique to the Congo Basin, ” Tshisekedi said. “DRC is on the way to becoming a global model, proving that economic prosperity and environmental protection can go hand in hand.”

The project will facilitate the transportation of commodities, strengthen agricultural value chains and advance sustainable development in the resource-rich country, he added.

But Indigenous and local groups in eastern DRC told Climate Home they have no idea how the flagship project – slated to safeguard more than 540,000 km² of tropical forest – will be implemented, and fear it could impinge on their land.

“As native peoples, we know nothing,” said Kapupu Diwa Mutimanwa, president of the League of Indigenous Pygmy Associations of Congo. “We have not been consulted about this project – nor have local communities, people that own the land where it will take place been contacted in advance”.

He expressed concern that the project could spark tensions on the ground. “As Indigenous peoples, we might say to the authorities that we do not want this project passing through our cemeteries, as we do not know how it will be operationalised,” he said.

Renewed global violence puts pressure on climate adaptation

Sustainable – not illicit – activities

Greenpeace Africa said the project, partly funded by the European Union, could perpetuate neo-colonialism, and so far lacks an inclusive approach as it has not respected the principle of gaining buy-in from affected local communities during the planning stage.

Other supporters include Grameen Bank, the Schmidt Family Foundation and the WEF’s 1t.org initiative.

President Tshisekedi has promised that the Kivu-Kinshasa Green Corridor will revitalise the country’s economy, strengthen communities and promote lasting peace in eastern Congo. The region has recently seen Rwandan-backed M23 rebels make significant advances while reportedly committing atrocities on the civilian population.

Map showing DRC’s Kivu-Kinshasa Green Corridor (Fanis Kollias)

The government hopes the project will improve the lives of 31 million people. Tshisekedi promised it will create 500,000 jobs, including at least 20,000 for young men and women who have been demobilised from armed groups.

Over half of Virunga National Park, a UNESCO world heritage site that is famous for its endangered mountain gorillas, is currently under rebel control and the long-running conflict has led to increased deforestation.

“By replacing illicit activities with sustainable agricultural and mineral sustainable value chains, we will build an economy that respects both people and nature,” DRC’s leader added in Davos.

Jozef Síkela, the European Commissioner for International Partnerships, who announced 42 million euros ($44 million) in new grant funding for the initiative, said in a post on social media platform X that it would promote job creation and biodiversity conservation.

It will also advance “eco-friendly trade” through the use of “hydrogen-powered boats and solar logistics hubs which will transport up to 1 million tons of goods annually, boosting regional trade and supporting sustainable agriculture”, he added.

The DRC corridor – which Síkela described as a “lifeline for green economic transformation” – is part of the Commission’s Africa-EU Global Gateway, a package running from 2021-2027 that is investing 150 billion euros in the African continent to boost infrastructure projects.

Over the past decade, the EU and five of its member states have already provided around 1 billion euros for the area covered by the DRC’s Green Corridor to support conservation, security, energy, transport as well as agricultural value chains.

Tristan Smith, professor of energy and transport at University College London, is sceptical of some of the proposed ideas such as boats running on hydrogen, which he said is not a competitive or efficient energy source compared with electric batteries.

He warned the project might be “green/development PR” for the EU unless the solutions are thought through in the local context, and set up to operate over a time-frame of 20 years or more.

Imposed from the outside?

Pygmy representative Diwa Mutimanwa said there is a contradiction between the Green Corridor being presented as a community project while it is managed by the state-run Congolese Institute for Nature Conservation (ICCN).

Furthermore, the plan seems to have been imposed on DRC from the outside, he added.

 ”The idea of creating this protected area is not a Congolese concept,” he said. “We notice that this has come from a foreign source even though we don’t know what the motivations are behind it all.”

The ICCN did not respond to requests for comment for this story.

After US cuts cash, Green Climate Fund head urges others to step up

Daniel Makasi Mahamba, an environmental analyst and journalist based in the eastern rebel-held city of Goma, said previous natural parks with similar aims had done little to benefit local communities.

“Wanting to create more means depriving Indigenous communities of their rights to use the natural resources in these lands which were once part of their cultural heritage,” he said.

Meanwhile, efforts to ensure that such projects contribute to local development have not always worked in the past, he noted, citing an electrification initiative for communities around Virunga where high levels of poverty made it difficult for local people to access the electric power.

Potential for communities

Joe Eisen, executive director of Rainforest Foundation UK, said he was yet to be convinced that the project can achieve its “lofty aims”. He told Climate Home its ethos appears to be less of a protected area or community reserve and more of a “vehicle to promote green investments” along the corridor.

“A lot of the details – such as how it will protect 100,000 km2 of primary forests and create 500,000 jobs – remain to be seen,” he added.

The proposed reserve is intended to be a “community-managed protected area”, implying active involvement and governance by local communities, according to Tshisekedi.

But a report by the Rainforest Foundation points out that a ministerial decree establishing the corridor “lacks clear measures in terms of how it will function specifically as a Community Reserve”.

Nonetheless, Eisen said there could be upsides if there is genuine willingness on the part of the authorities to develop participatory governance of the area and unlock green investments in things like community forests.

“Some of the provisions built into the decree, such as the requirement for large development of conservation projects to obtain the free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) of impacted local populations, can also in theory change the rules of the game in their favour,” he added.

The post DRC’s huge Green Corridor project lacks buy-in from forest communities appeared first on Climate Home News.

DRC’s huge Green Corridor project lacks buy-in from forest communities

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Equity, Benefit-Sharing and Financial Architecture in the International Seabed Area

Published

on

A new independent study by Dr Harvey Mpoto Bombaka (Centro Universitário de Brasília) and Dr Ben Tippet (King’s College London), commissioned by Greenpeace International, reveals that current International Seabed Authority revenue-sharing proposals would return virtually nothing to developing countries — despite the requirement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) that deep sea mining must benefit humankind as a whole.
Instead, the analysis shows that the overwhelming economic value would flow to a handful of private corporations, primarily headquartered in the Global North.

Download the report:

Equity, Benefit-Sharing and Financial Architecture in the International Seabed Area

Executive Summary: Equity, Benefit-Sharing and Financial Architecture in the International Seabed Area

https://www.greenpeace.org.au/greenpeace-reports/equity-benefit-sharing-and-financial-architecture-in-the-international-seabed-area/

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Pacific nations would be paid only thousands for deep sea mining, while mining companies set to make billions, new research reveals

Published

on

SYDNEY/FIJI, Thursday 26 February 2026 — New independent research commissioned by Greenpeace International has revealed that Pacific Island states would receive mere thousands of dollars in payment from deep sea mining per year, placing the region as one of the most affected but worst-off beneficiaries in the world.

The research by legal professor Dr Harvey Mpoto Bombaka and development economist Dr Ben Tippet reveals that mechanisms proposed by the International Seabed Authority (ISA) for sharing any future revenues from deep sea mining would leave developing nations with meagre, token payments. Pacific Island nations would receive only USD $46,000 per year in the short term, then USD $241,000 per year in the medium term, averaging out to barely USD $382,000 per year for 28 years – an entire annual income for a nation that is less than some individual CEOs’ salaries. Mining companies would rake in over USD $13.5 billion per year, taking up to 98% of the revenues.

The analysis shows that under a scenario where six deep sea mining sites begin operating in the early 2030s, the revenues that states would actually receive are extraordinarily small. This is in contrast to the clear mandate of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which requires mining to be carried out for the benefit of humankind as a whole.[1] The real beneficiaries, the research shows, would be, yet again, a handful of corporations in the Global North.

Head of Pacific at Greenpeace Australia Pacific Shiva Gounden, said:
“What the Pacific is being promised amounts to little more than scraps. The people of the Pacific would sacrifice the most and receive the least if deep sea mining goes ahead. We are being asked to trade in our spiritual and cultural connection to our oceans, and risk our livelihoods and food sources, for almost nothing in return.

“The deep sea mining industry has manipulated the Pacific and has lied to our people for too long, promising prosperity and jobs that simply do not exist. The wealthy CEOs and deep sea mining companies will pocket the cash while the people of the Pacific see no material benefits. The Pacific will not benefit from deep sea mining, and our sacrifice is too big to allow it to go ahead. The Pacific Ocean is not a commodity, and it is not for sale.”

Using proposals submitted by the ISA’s Finance Committee between 2022 and 2025, the returns to states barely register in national accounts. After administrative costs, institutional expenses, and compensation funds are deducted, little, if anything, remains to distribute [3].

Author Dr Harvey Mpoto Bombaka of the Centro Universitário de Brasília said:

“What’s described as global benefit-sharing based on equity and intergenerational justice increasingly looks like a framework for managing scarcity that would deliver almost no real benefits to anyone other than the deep sea mining industry. The structural limitations of the proposed mechanism would offer little more than symbolic returns to the rest of the world, particularly developing countries lacking technological and financial capacity.”

The ISA will meet in March for its first session of the year. Currently, 40 countries back a moratorium or precautionary pause on deep sea mining.

Gounden added: “The deep sea belongs to all humankind, and our people take great pride in being the custodians of our Pacific Ocean. Protecting this with everything we have is not only fair and responsible but what we see as our ancestral duty. The only equitable path is to leave the minerals where they are and stop deep sea mining before it starts. 

“The decision on the future of the ocean must be a process that centres the rights and voices of Pacific communities as the traditional custodians. Clearly, deep sea mining will not benefit the Pacific, and the only sensible way forward is a moratorium.”

—ENDS—

Notes

[1] A key condition for governments to permit deep sea mining to start in the international seabed is that it ‘be carried out for the benefit of mankind as a whole’, particularly developing nations, according to international law (Article 136-140, 148, 150, and 160(2)(g), the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea).

For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact Kimberley Bernard on +61407 581 404 or kbernard@greenpeace.org

Pacific nations would be paid only thousands for deep sea mining, while mining companies set to make billions, new research reveals

Continue Reading

Climate Change

North Carolina Regulators Nix $1.2 Billion Federal Proposal to Dredge Wilmington Harbor

Published

on

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers failed to explain how it would mitigate environmental harms, including PFAS contamination.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers can’t dredge 28 miles of the Wilmington Harbor as planned, after North Carolina environmental regulators determined the billion-dollar proposal would be inconsistent with the state’s coastal management policies.

North Carolina Regulators Nix $1.2 Billion Federal Proposal to Dredge Wilmington Harbor

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com