Connect with us

Published

on

Mario Hastings is a community leader and former Toshao of Kako Village in Upper Mazaruni, Guyana. 

The Essequibo region of Guyana where I live lies at the heart of Guyana’s economic expansion – it’s one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. Essequibo is also the home of many of Guyana’s Indigenous communities, and we are under siege from all sides.  

To the north, there is oil drilling off the coast. To the west, the Venezuelan army threatens to invade as the government covets Essequibo’s natural riches. To the south, fires rage as Brazilian farmers clear the borderlands of rainforest. And in the east, the Guyanese government has traded the rights to the intact forests of the Essequibo for global carbon offsets as well as for gold-mine concessions – often on the same lands – even though many Indigenous communities live in these territories. 

Colombia adds nature to the mix with its $40-billion energy transition plan

The Indigenous communities of Guyana, similar to Indigenous communities around the globe, live in the space between economic development and cultural conflict. And that is only when our existence is acknowledged. My village, for example, is not located on any “official” maps even though we have lived on these lands for many generations.

But our continued existence must be a priority to ensure the success of climate solutions linked to our forests. 

Guyana’s forests are valued because so many of the 18 million hectares of woodlands within the country’s borders remain undisturbed. Our trees are exceptional for their timber, our soil is rich, and in many places, the mineral wealth underground is unimaginable. And yet, the trees are still standing because of the ways in which we Indigenous Peoples have sustained them and how we live in relation to these forests. No one else cares for these territories in the same way. 

“Kept in the dark”

As we have kept our territories intact for generations, Indigenous lands, like the Essequibo region, include a large percentage of forests, sheltering much of the world’s biodiversity and absorbing large quantities of carbon. But carbon credit transactions that ignore Indigenous land rights sabotage the traditional governance systems and our relationship to nature that has kept the forests so valuable. 

There have been two rounds of carbon credit sales in Guyana, with payments from international bodies making their way through the government and a few other middlemen until reaching the group of Toshaos (community leaders) who have agreed to the government’s uncompromising terms. The cost of this compliance, however, has been far too steep. 

Guyanese community leader Mario Hastings (Photo: Kamikia Kisedje / Nia Tero)

We still do not have access to the carbon credit scheme agreement that the government has signed – even for those communities that the government does recognize. All of us are kept in the dark. 

The international organization that authorizes this carbon credit scheme, the Architecture for REDD+ Transactions (ART), has rejected a formal complaint made by the Amerindian Peoples Association  about this lack of transparency. And yet, our lands have been given out without our consent and without resolving the issues surrounding the titles to our customary territories.  

From where we stand, it does not matter if the land grab is for the gold in the ground – where removing it threatens the trees and rivers – or for the carbon in the trees, which must remain standing. We should be allowed to share our opinions and participate in the decision-making. Instead, we are told that the carbon in the trees on our lands does not belong to our people, it belongs to the state. 

Carbon profits for who?

We have complained that the carbon credit scheme fails to provide an adequate process for validating the carbon, and it does not define who has rights to profit off of the carbon. The scheme’s standards do not adhere to ART’s environment and social safeguards. And our communities’ right to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) has been repeatedly ignored. 

Some of the communities were told they could submit sustainability plans, for how they would continue to care for the forests, and in return they would receive payments to subsidize that work and their way of life. But, in doing so, the communities were not surrendering their rights, especially their land rights that the government doesn’t recognize in the first place. 

Amazon state that will host COP30 strikes “largest carbon credit sale in history”

Typical of places with a wealth of natural resources that have yet to be exploited, Essequibo is rarely in the lens of global media coverage. Outside interests operate with less restraint when they feel that no one is watching. And so, with the carbon credit markets, Indigenous rights are rarely respected, and no one notices. 

If we want to stave off the worst of climate change, however, we need tropical forests to remain upright and to do that, governments need to respect Indigenous rights over our lands and the biodiversity, forests and carbon that we protect. We want to be of service through the stewardship of our territories – and all humanity can benefit. 


Climate Home contacted ART about the complaint made by the Amerindian Peoples Association over Guyana’s carbon credit programme. ART responded as follows:

The Architecture for REDD+ Transactions (ART) is a global carbon crediting program that certifies high-integrity emission reductions and removals from protecting and restoring forests at scale. ART operates at a jurisdictional scale to align with Paris Agreement requirements for REDD+ and ensures social integrity by directly aligning with the UN-defined Cancún Safeguards.

Following an initial complaint submitted in March 2023 by the Amerindian Peoples Association (APA), a thorough review was conducted, which included stakeholder interviews and a close examination of the validation and verification process, determining that ART’s processes had been followed. Subsequently, on October 27, 2023, the ART Secretariat dismissed an appeal made by APA, due to the APA’s failure to comply with procedural requirements. A summary of the Appeal Record, as well as all Appeal Record Documents, are available on the ART website.

The post Guyana’s carbon-credit deal to protect forests undermines forest protectors  appeared first on Climate Home News.

Guyana’s carbon-credit deal to protect forests undermines its forest protectors 

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