Connect with us

Published

on

More than half of the 27 million carbon credits produced by one of the world’s largest offsetting projects did not correspond to actual emission reductions, leading carbon registry Verra has said following a two-year review of Zimbabwe’s Kariba forest protection initiative.

Verra is now seeking compensation for the millions of “excess” credits from Carbon Green Investments (CGI) – the project’s developer – after the registry’s technical analysis found the threat to the forest had been overstated in the project’s original forecast.

The Kariba REDD+ project, which aims to protect an area 10 times the size of New York City, has long faced accusations by several media outlets and carbon market analysts of exaggerating its climate credentials through flawed carbon accounting and of failing to provide promised benefits to local communities.

The conservation project stretches across national parks, forest reserves and wildlife corridors along the southern shore of Lake Kariba in the Zambezi River basin in northern Zimbabwe.

Dozens of big companies, including Gucci, Volkswagen, Nestlé and Dutch electricity firm Greenchoice, bought millions of Kariba’s credits and used them to offset part of their own emissions and back up various green assertions.

Overstated deforestation risk

According to a report by Bloomberg, the project generated more than $100 million in revenue after being set up over a decade ago by South Pole, a major Swiss carbon credits broker, and CGI, which is run by a Zimbabwean businessman. South Pole walked away from Kariba in late 2023 when Verra suspended the project and began an internal review following an investigation by The New Yorker magazine.

Nearly two years later, Verra announced last week that its review had found 57% of Kariba’s nearly 27 million credits were issued “in excess”. That is because the actual deforestation observed in a reference area chosen by Kariba’s project developers to predict how much CO2 the scheme would conserve was “significantly lower” than initially estimated, Verra said.

    This calculation is known as the baseline against which a project’s performance is assessed. Critics have repeatedly questioned the accounting method and said flawed methodologies compromise the integrity of carbon offsets. Previous studies by independent rating agencies suggested Kariba may have produced as many as 30 times more credits than it should have done by exaggerating the threat to forests that were never really at risk.

    Compensation process

    Verra said last week that, despite finding them worthless, the millions of “excess” credits already used by buyers would remain valid. But, at the same time, the carbon registry has requested CGI to compensate for them by buying and cancelling an equivalent number of credits from other projects.

    Verra “received a positive response related to this process” from CGI, a spokesperson subsequently told Climate Home News, without giving further details.

    CGI’s founder, Zimbabwean tycoon Steve Wentzel, did not reply to a request for comment. In an online statement, CGI said it remains dedicated to Kariba’s “mission of forest conservation” and “committed to continue working toward resolutions that uphold the highest standards”.

    The company also said it had asked Verra for a “moratorium” on the compensation process until it reviews the registry’s carbon assessment.

    Will pricing emissions from flying affect tourism? Not if it’s done right

    Separately, Verra also invited the holders of nearly 5 million Kariba credits that have been purchased but not yet used for offsetting to “voluntarily” eliminate those credits, which in that case would be counted towards the compensation.

    South Pole, CGI’s former partner in the scheme, said last week it had asked Verra to cancel 2.5 million credits it still held “to help address the discrepancies in issued credits and uphold the environmental integrity of the project”.

    ‘Big concerns’ remain

    But Jonathan Crook, at the nonprofit Carbon Market Watch (CMW), said Verra’s handling of the Kariba case leaves many questions unanswered and raises big concerns.

    “It is not clear what, if anything concrete, will happen if CGI refuses this request [for compensation], thereby raising real questions over whether anyone will actually be held liable, which would be a shockingly inappropriate outcome to this scandal,” he added.

    Verra has a patchy track record in obtaining compensation from discredited projects. Nearly 2 million phantom credits linked to failed methane-cutting rice cultivation projects in China have yet to be paid back more than a year since Verra shut down the schemes and sought recompense from their developers.

      As Climate Home revealed last year, energy giant Shell was directly involved in the projects and used the majority of the credits to offset – on paper – real greenhouse gas emissions created by its vast fossil fuel operations.

      Climate Home understands that Verra is still pursuing compensation for the excess credits from the companies involved in the rice cultivation projects, but there is no fixed timeline for the process to be completed.

      Questions over permanence

      CMW’s Crook also raised concerns over the future integrity of the remaining 11.6 million Kariba credits deemed by Verra’s review to be of good quality. An underlying principle of REDD+ projects is that carbon stored in forests must be maintained over a long period of time – up to a century – to reliably offset the release of fossil carbon.

      But, with the Kariba project no longer registered with Verra, any carbon supposedly conserved through the scheme now “faces a significant risk of being re-released into the atmosphere over the coming years and decades without any clear solution to remedy the situation”, Crook added.

      More than 5 million credits from the Kariba project had been kept in a so-called buffer pool, an insurance fund with credits set aside for unexpected losses in stored carbon.

      Verra said it had decided to “take pre-emptive action” and cancel all those credits. Additionally, a monitoring system will track deforestation in the project area in the years ahead and extra credits will be cancelled if observed forest loss goes beyond Kariba’s contributions to the buffer pool, the registry said.

      “We are following our processes to ensure integrity and deliver what is right for the climate and communities,” the Verra spokesperson added.

      The post Zimbabwe forest carbon megaproject generated millions of junk credits appeared first on Climate Home News.

      Zimbabwe forest carbon megaproject generated millions of junk credits

      Continue Reading

      Climate Change

      The Land Came First

      Published

      on

      An older teaching about land acknowledgement

      As I have come to understand the spirit and intention of land acknowledgement, I often return to fond memories of my grandmother and her words of wisdom. She taught that the health of the places we call home comes first, because the wellbeing of the people depends on it.

      In her teaching, land acknowledgement began with the land. Long before it became a paragraph read at the start of a meeting, it was a way of recognizing a homeland: its waters, its species, its seasons, and the spirit that revealed whether the place was well.

      Her teaching echoes a practice found across many Indigenous Nations. Haudenosaunee gatherings, for example, have long opened with the Ohén:ton Karihwatéhkwen, the Thanksgiving Address, often translated as “the words that come before all else.” The speaker greets and gives thanks to the people, the earth, the waters, the plants, the animals, the winds, the sun, the moon and the stars. Only after everything that sustains life has been acknowledged does the gathering turn to its own business.

      That order changes what an acknowledgement is for. Its purpose was to share the story of a place with neighbours and to draw them into the work of tending it. People entered the story second, as the ones responsible for what had just been named.

      Understood this way, an acknowledgement does more than open a meeting. It asks us to reconsider where we stand, and what we owe the ground beneath us.

      Nations among nations

      In her teaching, people are one nation among many. The salmon are a nation. So are the cedars, the bison, the medicine plants, and the pollinators. Each belongs to a place, carries its own responsibilities, and offers gifts no other nation can give.

      This idea of kinship runs through many Indigenous philosophies. The phrase “all my relations,” heard in ceremonies and gatherings across Turtle Island, is a reminder that family extends beyond people to the animals, plants, waters and lands that make life possible. Some Indigenous languages carry the same understanding in their grammar, speaking of many plants, animals and natural forces as living beings rather than objects.

      Sovereignty, understood through this relationship, is a kind of standing more than a form of control. Each nation belongs fully to its place and carries its share of that place’s life. No nation thrives alone, and none thrives by taking over the whole.

      The land is also the source of instruction. Over generations, people watched how a river valley or a stretch of prairie kept itself well: who arrived when, who fed whom, and how much could be taken before the giving stopped. In my grandmother’s telling, those observations became instructions, and those instructions helped shape law and protocol. They guided when to harvest, where to camp, how to enter a neighbour’s territory, and what was owed in return.

      Indigenous legal scholars today often describe this as law that comes from the land itself, learned by watching how living systems sustain one another. A plainer name for it is knowing how to live somewhere.

      The host and the guest

      One of the clearest teachings in this understanding of the world is the relationship between host and guest. My grandmother invited us to recognize that relationship in the lives of plants and animals.

      A host prepares the place before anyone arrives. A beaver family dams a stream, and the pond becomes a home for fish, frogs, birds and plants. A fallen tree becomes a nurse log, feeding the next generation of seedlings as it returns to the soil.

      A host offers first. A flowering plant sets out nectar. A berry bush ripens fruit. These provisions come in their own season, not whenever a visitor happens to want them.

      A host also makes its presence known. Birdsong, scent and the marks left along a trail tell newcomers that a place is already inhabited. The visitor does not arrive in an empty world.

      The guest has responsibilities too. A guest attends to the season and to what the place can offer. A guest does not assume that everything within reach is theirs to take. A guest leaves something that helps sustain the relationship.

      A bee takes nectar and carries pollen. Read through this teaching, that exchange offers an image of visiting well: receiving a gift while helping the host continue its life.

      Many Indigenous harvesting protocols carry the same ethic into daily practice: ask before taking, take only what is needed, offer thanks, and leave enough for others and for the plant or animal to recover.

      None of this suggests that every relationship in nature is peaceful or generous. These are ways of seeing responsibilities that people can learn to carry.

      Everyone is both

      No being is only a host or only a guest.

      A tree makes room for other life while depending on soil, water, sunlight, fungi, and relationships beyond itself. People, too, may welcome others into their homes while remaining dependent on the larger homeland that sustains them.

      The distinction between host and guest is therefore about roles, not ranks. Everyone receives. Everyone has something to give.

      The question is whether the exchange sustains the place.

      A visitor who takes without restraint leaves less for those who come next. A host who neglects the place has less to offer. Both have responsibilities, and neither can fulfil them alone.

      This is the heart of reciprocity, a principle found across Indigenous philosophies: relationships stay healthy when gifts move in both directions. The Haudenosaunee teaching of the seventh generation extends that exchange across time, asking that decisions made today leave the place well for those not yet born.

      Mutual benefit begins here, with the recognition that different beings carry different gifts and obligations.

      What people carry forward

      My grandmother’s teaching connects these relationships to the ways people meet their neighbours.

      The host prepares a place, offers food and rest, and explains where the visitor has arrived. The guest makes themselves known, explains why they have come, listens to the terms of the visit, and brings something in return. The gift may be material. It may also be labour, knowledge, news, or a commitment to help.

      Nations around the Great Lakes carried this ethic into treaty. The Dish with One Spoon, an agreement among the Haudenosaunee, Anishinaabe and allied Nations, describes shared hunting grounds as a single dish. Everyone eats from it with one spoon, takes only what they need, leaves enough for others, and keeps the dish clean. The Two Row Wampum, between the Haudenosaunee and European newcomers, shows two vessels travelling side by side on the same river, each keeping its own ways and neither steering the other.

      In this understanding, acknowledgement is more than naming the people associated with a territory. It is learning enough about a homeland to behave responsibly within it.

      Whose home is this? What sustains it? What laws and agreements guide our presence? What can we receive, and what must we return?

      These questions make acknowledgement a relationship rather than a recital.

      They also make it diplomatic. A guest who recognizes the host’s homeland recognizes that they have entered a place with its own relationships and responsibilities. A host who welcomes the guest makes room for an encounter governed by those relationships.

      Neither arrives without standing. Neither arrives without obligations.

      Beginning with place

      I write from the shores of the Bay of Quinte. Here, the teaching asks me to begin with the water, the shoreline, and the life they sustain. Before I describe myself, I must attend to where I am.

      That does not make people or history less important. It places them within the homeland that gives them meaning. The people, their laws, their agreements, and their responsibilities all belong to the place.

      In a time of longer fire seasons, troubled waters, and uncertainty about what the next season will bring, this teaching asks something difficult and useful of us: pay attention before you speak.

      An acknowledgement cannot tell the story of a place if the speaker has stopped noticing it.

      The land came first. Beginning there again means learning to name what sustains us, and accepting that what sustains us also asks something of us.

      By Rye Karonhiowanen Barberstock

      Photo by Andrik Langfield on Unsplash

      The post The Land Came First appeared first on Indigenous Climate Hub.

      The Land Came First

      Continue Reading

      Climate Change

      Analysis: Fossil-fuel CO2 emissions set to dip in 2026 as Iran conflict hits oil use

      Published

      on

      Article Contents