Monday, January 13, 2025

 INDIA

Source: Coop News

Ahmedabad, a city with a population of 7.4m, is renowned for its cotton textiles – an industry which saw it dubbed the Manchester of India.

This thriving sector relied on informal women workers, who in 1971 decided to ask for decent wages. They were joined in their plight by the late Ela Bhatt, a lawyer and a labour organiser, who set up the Self-Employed Women’s Association (Sewa) – an association of self-employed informal women workers in 1972.

At first, Sewa focused on getting recognition for these women as workers and securing the same benefits that formal sector workers had. However, after Sewa members negotiated minimum wages and decent working conditions, middlemen stopped offering them contracts, prompting them to set up their own co-ops. 

Today, Sewa Cooperative Federation is world renowned, and has inspired similar efforts around the world.

Earlier this month, I joined Dr Sarah Alldred from the Co-operative College on a two-day visit to Sewa. We set off on Monday morning, stopping first at Sewa’s premises. As we waited to be picked up, we were approached by a group of high school students from the local Mahatma Gandhi International School who wanted to know what we were doing in Ahmedabad. Their teacher told us Sewa is well-known in Ahmedabad.

Setting off, our first destination was Sewa’s premises. The journey gave us the opportunity to see the Gates of Ahmedabad, built during different periods of India’s history, starting from 1411 as the entrances to the city.

At the Sewa HQ, we were greeted with a traditional welcome ceremony, being given garlands and having a “tikka” (vermillion) applied on our foreheads.

We got to speak with the chair of Sewa Co-operative Federation, Mirai Chatterjee, its managing director, Jigisha Maheta, and some of their other colleagues.

“Sewa was born when a group of women workers who were street vendors mainly or clothes vendors said – ‘Why don’t we have an organisation for ourselves’,” said Chatterjee.

“At the time it is was groundbreaking event because no such trade union of informal workers existed in India, and that, too, of informal women workers. So when Ela Bhatt went to the trade union Registrar, he couldn’t understand this kind of trade union. ‘Who will you agitate against, who will you fight against?’ And she said – ‘We are from the informal economy. Forty per cent of workers in the informal economy are self-employed. We don’t have an employer but we have many issues. So we would like to organise into a union’ – and that is how Sewa was born in 1972.”

With access to funding posing a crucial barrier for these women, Sewa set up a bank in 1974. It was the first women’s co-op bank – not just in India, but in the world.

“And from a handful of women now we have over half a million depositors,” said Chatterjee.

Sewa Bank offers savings, loans and micro insurance products as part of a full-circle service to help poor women become self-reliant.

We got to visit the bank on our next stop and spoke with managing director Jayshree Vyas, who told us more about the bank’s early days.

She explained that while the women did not know how to run a bank, they said: “We are poor but we are many”. Each of the 4,000 Sewa informal women workers gave 10 rupees to set up the bank.

The bank operates on trust and does not require guarantees. Instead, it relies on community leaders to remind those who fail to pay off their debt. Around 60% of the women taking loans from Sewa Bank are not digitally trained, which means bank employees have to collect in person from the borrowers’ homes. This helps to create a relationship of mutual trust between the bank and the borrower that is not confined to one transaction.

Photo of Sewa’s founder at the Sewa Bank premises

Our journey continued with a visit to the Shri Kada Fruit and Vegetable Cooperative, where we met farmer members. They told us how being part of the co-op means they can pool resources and bypass middlemen. One of the co-op’s leaders runs a collection centre at her house, which enables farmers to drop their produce there and save costs, rather than have to travel to other villages.

The farmers were keen to learn about co-ops in other countries – particularly agri co-ops that are performing well. They also wanted to find out more about the challenges these co-ops face, such as attracting young people – a problem they share.

The second day of the tour began with a visit to a Sewa pharmacy. This particular pharmacy, sited across the road from a hospital, is run by women workers and open to the public. Sewa operates four pharmacies, two of which – including the one we visited – are open 24 hours.

Operating 24-hour pharmacies is not without challenges, with female staff noting that night shifts can occasionally attract angry customers.

Covid posed another challenge, but the pharmacies managed to stay open, offering a vital service to their communities.

Both employees we met have worked at the pharmacy for over two decades. Asked why she had stayed so long, one of them told us that when she started working at the pharmacy, she earned 900 rupees a month. Shortly afterward she received an offer from a competitor for 2,500 rupees a month, which she refused because she felt she was working for a good cause. Now she earns 30,000 rupees a month. 

We left the pharmacy and headed towards the Sewa Sangini Childcare Cooperative, a nursery is based in an impoverished area of Ahmedabad. One of Sewa’s 13 childcare centres, it is open to Sewa members – as well as people in the local community, for whom the nursery is an introduction to Sewa; many of them move on to use the federation’s other services. 

Visiting the Shri Kada Fruit and Vegetable Cooperative

Children of street vendors are among those cared for. At the centre, they receive three meals a day, lessons, and visits with a doctor every three months. The nursery also engages with parents regularly, including fathers, to ensure they are aware of their responsibilities. 

Parents pay only 500 rupees a month for the service – but running the centre costs 30,000 rupees a month, which means Sewa relies on donations to operate it.

At the centre, we met some of Sewa’s insurance agents who told us that explaining the concept of insurance to Sewa workers is challenging. Sewa started its insurance business in 1992 to offer a back-up plan in case members cannot pay loans.

One employee told us that she used to sell sarees – and when she came across a Sewa insurance agent, she realised she could sell insurance products to her clients. She now collects premium payments from 2,900 Sewa members. 

Another Sewa Insurance employee told how she grew up in a Sewa childcare centre and now works for the federation’s marketing team.  

We left the centre and headed toward Sewa’s production unit for Ayurvedic medicine, one of the beneficiaries of the funding from UK co-ops to Sewa in 2021.

The centre is operated by the Lok Swashthya Cooperative, established in 1990 to provide women in the informal economy with access to basic health services. Today the co-op has over 1,500 members. The medicine produced here is sold in Sewa pharmacies, general practitioner centres and online. 

After visiting the centre, we headed back to Sewa’s premises to meet some of the young women participating in its Surjan programme, which was funded by UK co-ops. But how did this support come about? 

“There was a quite a severe outbreak of Covid in India,” says Alldred. “The UK co-operative movement wanted to support co-operatives as an act of solidarity and as an act of principle six, co-operation among co-operatives, so we reached out to Sewa Federation and raised £100,000 to send in solidarity. 

“Around £70,000 of that fund was for direct support, for oxygen tanks, masks and for working capital to help co-operatives survive through Covid. And then the [remaining] £30,000 was for the two incubator
co-operatives.”

The project focused on providing research and communication skills to young women in Ahmedabad. As part of this, they also received  soft skills and self-defence training. The young women we met told us that before taking part in  the programme they had never been allowed to leave their homes unaccompanied by male family members. They said the programme had helped them gain confidence. Some were even able to get jobs by using the new skills they had acquired. They were also curious to know whether the UK had any women-only co-ops. 

Next, the tour took us to Ela Bhatt’s house. Sewa’s founder died in 2022, leaving a huge legacy. We met her son and sister, both of whom were keen to learn more about Sewa’s current work and the wider co-operative movement.  

Our last stop was Mirai Chatterjee’s house, where we were able to delve deeper into the issues of concern to Sewa and its members.

The funding from the UK movement “really touched us deeply,” she said, “because it’s solidarity in action, it’s co-operative to co-operative in action, it is sisterhood in action and we have not been able to forget that.”

Sewa pharmacy visit

This money allowed Sewa to support a dozen small women’s co-operatives across India, said Chatterjee – “two of them savings and credit co-operatives, which almost went under because women couldn’t pay back their loans. 

“This money helped to keep the co-operatives afloat during Covid.

“Most of these co-operatives took working capital from us from 300,000 to 500,000 rupees – and the interesting thing is that most of them paid it back. We didn’t take any interest, we had a small margin, just for auditing and other administrative costs, but we thought this was a good practice so some of it was a grant for some of the smaller co-operatives who were struggling.

“But the savings and credit co-operatives, our health co-operative, which produces traditional medicines – all of them returned the money so the fund is still with us and we’re able to lend to others. 

“From this experience we have been advocating with our government that, if you want to support women’s co-operatives – small, informal worker co-operatives – through good times and bad, not just during crises, then you need to create this kind of livelihood fund which will provide working capital, either as soft loans or some kind of revolving fund so the co-operatives can grow and prosper.

“The co-operatives have shown their resilience through the whole Covid period, so really, as I said, we are very touched and grateful to the UK co-operative movement.”

We also asked Chatterjee about the challenge of getting young women involved in co-ops, particularly children of second and third generation Sewa members.

She explained that most of them want to do things differently, particularly due to being more educated and understanding digital tools. To appeal to this generation, Sewa used some of the funding from the UK co-op movement to provide digital, communication and research training to young women related to Sewa members. 

The next step will be to bring these women together to launch two co-ops – but getting their families’ approval has been difficult. 

Sewa Insurance members share their stories

“As you perhaps are aware, we live in a very patriarchal society and one of the ways that  that’s manifesting is control of women and girls’ mobility,” said Chatterjee. “So it’s difficult for girls and women to come out of the home if they are unattended or unsupported by a male family member. 

“It has taken a lot of work with the parents to explain that they’re not wandering here and we’re all together as a group, they’re safe and they’re with us, they’re with Sewa and this is a new way of coming together, forming a collective and hopefully a co-operative soon, and getting regular livelihoods in the new way.” 

The long flight back to the UK gave us time to consider the key learnings of our visit. While our time with Sewa was short, the UK co-op movement’s support for it is a long-term commitment.

Sewa’s pioneering role in formalising informal women workers was also highlighted in a recent report by the International Labour Organization (ILO). 

Lok Swashthya Cooperative Ayurvedic production unit

It says that Sewa demonstrates just how crucial it is that all members – whether professionals or grassroots workers – share the values that the federation represents, and think not just of personal benefits but benefits for the collective and all its members.  

Another important lesson is that during the initial period of a co-op relationship, when connections are being made and trust established, physical meetings are irreplaceable, with Sewa staff visiting co-ops and their members regularly.

Covid also showed that while a standalone co-operative will struggle to withstand crises, collective bodies like Sewa Co-operative Federation are able to garner the resources needed overcome them.

The ILO’s report is just one of the many studies highlighting the difference made by Sewa. But while this research speaks volumes, it cannot put into words the sight of happy, well-nourished and looked after children at Sewa’s childcare centres, or of young women empowered to become advocates in their local community. 

One thing is certain, with more support, Sewa can not only continue to fulfil its mission, but also keep growing the women’s co-operative movement in India.



ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.Donate

 

Source: Labor Notes

The International Longshoremen’s Association has settled its East and Gulf Coast contract shortly before a January 15 strike deadline. The deal locks in a 62 percent wage increase over six years and expands existing automation protections. Workers will also see larger “container royalty” payouts.

The agreement will go first to a body of ILA delegates, and then members will vote. The full agreement is not yet public.

ILA members won the big wage promise after striking for three days in October, shutting down container shipping on the East and Gulf Coasts in their first coastwide strike since 1977. But the 20,000 workers went back to work with the major question of automation still on the table.

Further negotiations broke off in November, when the union and the port employers, organized under the U.S. Maritime Alliance (USMX), deadlocked over the introduction of new technology to automate work. Employers, flush with cash from a recent shipping boom, seek to invest it in automated equipment to reduce human control and blunt the effect of job actions.

The sides reconvened less than two weeks before the strike deadline, and quickly inked a tentative agreement.

AUTOMATION IS HERE

Around the world, automation threatens to undermine the power of longshore workers, who are often highly organized and control an important chokepoint in global trade.

Strikes, lockouts, and slowdowns can be extremely costly. Longshore workers in the U.S. and elsewhere have used this leverage to secure relatively high wage rates.

Port automation isn’t all-or-nothing—terminal operators have lately introduced varying degrees of labor-saving technology. Already in use in the U.S. are scanners, radio frequency identification devices, cranes that can operate for part of their range of motion with no human input, and even cranes that are fully autonomous.

The fully autonomous cranes, however, are only in place on the West Coast, under an agreement with the separate International Longshore and Warehouse Union.

SECRET MEETINGS

While negotiations were on hold, the father-son team of ILA President Harold Daggett and Vice-President Dennis Daggett met with U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, who issued a statement of support in their fight against automation.

Trump and a few other Republicans have been making overtures to some union leaders, painting themselves as protectors of the working class. After the meeting, VP (and heir apparent) Dennis Daggett lobbed back lavish praise for Trump.

This week the senior Daggett, in his first contract update in weeks—before announcing the terms of the agreement—released a statement calling the president-elect a hero: “President Trump gets full credit for our successful tentative Master Contract agreement.”

U.S. presidents from both parties have used executive power under the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act to intervene in port disputes. But President Joe Biden promised not to intervene and did not invoke Taft-Hartley during the three-day strike, despite howls of indignation from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers.

JOB PROTECTIONS ON NEW TECH

In the deal, the union holds on to existing contract language that protects against certain types of automation, and has won guaranteed jobs where partial automation is put in place.

Port employers will still be blocked from implementing “fully automated” port technology: the employers cannot implement equipment that is “devoid of human interaction.” And the union and the employers have to agree on implementing any new technology; if they cannot agree, the question gets sent to arbitration.

This language prevents East and Gulf Coast port employers from implementing the more extreme forms of automation seen in other parts of the world, including the Long Beach Container Terminal, in Southern California, where autonomous trucks and cranes entirely replace human operators.

SEMI-AUTOMATION ROLLS ON

But semi-automation still threatens jobs. East and Gulf Coast port employers have been expanding job-killing technology even under the existing contractual protections.

Global Container Terminals’ operation in Bayonne, New Jersey, is one of three semi-automated terminals on the East Coast (the other two are smaller operations in Virginia). Massive rail-mounted gantry cranes there can move along part of their trajectory with no human input.

Union workers lift and place shipping containers by video feed, which allows employers to assign them multiple cranes at a time. Traditional operations would assign one or more operators to each crane.

For this type of work, the union won an employer commitment to add one job per semi-automated crane, including in locations where the technology is already in place. This still accounts for less human labor than would be required if semi-automation were not present, and the work will be different. In New Jersey, the new jobs will maintain the equipment, rather than operate it.

In this way, the new agreement allows continued expansion of semi-automation across ILA ports. According to the Wall Street Journal, in the next several years the Port of Virginia intends to add 36 semiautonomous cranes to its existing stable of 116. Even though the contract requires additional staffing, other ports can be expected to do the same.

CONTAINER ROYALTY CAP LIFTED

The union historically has faced down advances in technology by requiring that workers be made whole. To this day shippers pay each worker a “container royalty” per ton of cargo they handle, first negotiated in 1960, to offset the cuts in labor resulting from containerization.

As shipping volumes rose, though, the employers created a royalty cap, and pocketed 50 percent over the cap. After the recent negotiations, that cap will be removed.

For higher-volume ports, this could mean additional tens of thousands of dollars to each worker every year. The union will also reap the benefits: the ILA collects 10 percent dues on container royalties, compared to 0.9 percent on regular income.

MEMBERS GENERALLY POSITIVE

The ILA does not have a robust democratic culture. Members are still in the dark about the contract specifics and how they were reached.

The Daggetts sped ahead without the rest of the negotiating team on several occasions, including when they met with Trump and when they conducted a pre-negotiations meeting in January.

However, ILA member reactions to the news on social media have been overwhelmingly positive.

Longshore workers who spoke to Labor Notes anonymously for fear of reprisals expressed frustration with the process, citing nontransparency, the lack of member input, and union leaders’ inattention to local issues like staffing and pensions. But they expected the contract to pass.

The Unfairness and Inadequacy of US Social Security Cost of Living Adjustment Increases


Facebook

January 13, 2025

Reductions in the purchasing power of one’s income occur when cost-of-living increases just keep up with the rate of inflation and are simultaneously accompanied by greater imposed costs. This has happened to Social Security recipients who are on Medicare. The 2025 Social Security Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) of 2.5% is being undermined by the increase cost of Medicare.[1]

The monthly Medicare cost in 2025 will rise 5.9% to $185/month from $174.70/month in 2024. This increase is more than twice the Social Security COLA. In 2024, when the Social Security COLA was 3.2%, Medicare also went up 5.9% from $164.90/month to $174.70/month.[2] Additionally, one may incur other increases in Medicare costs. Its deductible is going up in 2025 to $257 from $240.

According to the Social Security website,  the purpose of its COLA is “to ensure that the purchasing power of Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits is not eroded by inflation.” However, for many, the Medicare increase undermines this purpose.

In 2024, the average Social Security payment to a retired worker came to $1,920.48/month.The 2.5% Social Security COLA raises their monthly payment by $48/month. Factoring in the 5.9% increase for Medicare, their actual Social Security COLA increase comes to less than 2%.  For those entitled to less than the average Social Security payments who pay for Medicare, their real COLA is even smaller.

Additionally, this flat amount Medicare increase means that those with lower Social Security benefits, who presumably can least afford an increase in their Medicare premiums, are charged the same as those who are in a better position to afford the increase.

The impact of an across-the-board percent increase in Social Security payments is also highly unequal. Those recipients of the highest monthly amount receive the biggest dollar increase.  The maximum Social Security benefit in 2024 was $4,873/month. With the 2.5% increase, one entitled to the maximum will see their benefit for the year go up by $1,462 while a retired worker who is a recipient of the average benefit (of $1,920/month), and more likely to have unmet needs, will end up with a much lower increase of $576.

Those with higher total incomes may experience a further erosion in the 2.5% COLA since as much as 85% of their social security payments can be subject to income taxes.

In the message I received from Social Security with the title “Notice of Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA),” I was informed that I can use this letter as proof of my benefit amount if I need “to apply for food, rent, or energy assistance.”  Shouldn’t the amount one is receiving from Social Security be enough so that one does not have to apply for assistance to cover the costs of basic needs?

More funds could easily be raised to enable the government to provide people with greater Social Security benefits so they do not need to apply for assistance. Reducing military spending and ending corporate subsidies could certainly free up money. Higher taxes on the rich, including a wealth tax, and increasing the employer’s match of their employees’ Social Security tax deduction could raise more funds. Imposing Social Security taxes on rent collected and unearned income including interest, dividends, and capital gains (especially since much of the latter two is taxed at a lower income tax rate than income earned from a job) would raise more revenue. Additionally, by subjecting all earned income to Social Security taxes, not just the first $176,100, as is the rule in 2025, could be used to raise even more revenue.

In 2025, a worker making up to $176,100, and everyone else earning less, including a low wage worker, pays Social Security taxes at the rate of 6.2% on their earnings. Under the current system, a person earning $5 million pays the same amount of money in Social Security taxes as one earning $176,100. The person with the $5 million dollar salary pays Social Security taxes of less than .22% of their total salary. That person should be paying Social Security taxes on all of their earned income and, preferably, at a higher rate than 6.2%.

These possible solutions, that could raise enough revenue so Social Security covers peoples’ basic needs, will likely not be enacted. Instead, we face the likely prospects of being bombarded with claims by “responsible” politicians, “economists,” and others, all helped by the media, with layers of more bs about how Social Security will soon face a shortfall of funds crisis necessitating cuts in payments and/or that the best solution to this claimed crisis is that Social Security be privatized.

Notes.

1, The Social Security COLA increase is based on the rise in the consumer price index from the third quarter of the last year to the third quarter of the current year. In 2024, when the Social Security COLA was up 3.2% (based on consumer prices being up from the third quarter of 2022 through the third quarter of 2023), consumer prices were up 3.4% for the whole year in 2023.

2.The charge for Medicare is generally based on one’s income reported on a tax return two years before the current year. In 2023, if a single person’s income is just $1 above $106,000 or $212,000 for a married couple filing a joint tax return, they hit a fiscal cliff in 2025. Their Medicare monthly premium in 2025 goes up to $259 per person. Those with incomes greater than $133,000 for a single person or $266,000 for a couple filing jointly pay even more for Medicare. See:

https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/2025-medicare-parts-b-premiums-and-deductibles

Rick Baum teaches Political Science at City College of San Francisco. He is a member of AFT 2121.

Carbon Markets and the New Scramble for African Land

The global carbon offset market, projected to grow a hundredfold by 2050, exacerbates neocolonial exploitation under the guise of climate solutions.
January 11, 2025
Source: ROAPE


Image by Aurélie Marrier d’Unienville/IFRC.

In 2023, the global carbon offset market reached $2 billion, with projections suggesting a hundredfold increase by 2050. This explosive projected growth, touted as a solution to the climate crisis, masks a disturbing reality: carbon markets are fueling a new scramble for African land and perpetuating colonial-era exploitation.

Carbon offset markets operate through the buying and selling of carbon credits. A carbon credit allows the holder to emit one metric ton of carbon dioxide or its equivalent in greenhouse gases. Carbon markets and offsetting practices have been widely embraced as market-based mechanisms to incentivise a transition to a low-carbon economy. These markets provide economic incentives for entities to reduce emissions or invest in offset projects, enabling companies that can reduce emissions cost-effectively to sell their unused credits to those facing higher reduction costs.

However, beneath the veneer of sustainability and development, these mechanisms, particularly in Africa, are unveiling a complex web of injustices, power imbalances, and conflicts over land rights. The very solutions intended to safeguard our planet are, in reality, perpetuating colonial-era land grabs, dispossessing local communities, and entrenching neoliberal agendas that favour foreign interests over the needs of the Global South.

The current structure of carbon markets and offset projects involves the enclosure of vast tracts of land, including primary forests and ecosystems, effectively continuing a legacy of land expropriation. This dispossession of ancestral lands and livelihoods not only prioritizes carbon sinks and conservation areas over the subsistence farming, pastoralism, and cultural practices of local communities, particularly Indigenous peoples, but also disrupts their way of life. The neoliberal framework within which these offset schemes are promoted enables corporations in the Global North to outsource their environmental responsibilities and effectively greenwash their unsustainable practices by purchasing offsets.

It is becoming clear that the pursuit of market-based climate solutions, beyond addressing pressing climate change concerns, inadvertently propagates social injustice and human rights violations that deserve urgent redress.
Carbon markets and their role in climate change mitigation

In the face of the pressing challenge to limit global warming to below 2°C, as emphasized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, carbon markets have emerged as a key strategy in the global fight against climate change. The concept, introduced by the Kyoto Protocol in 2005, marked the birth of carbon as a tradable commodity, ushering in a new era of emissions financialization.

Carbon markets offer a pathway for industries that face challenges in reducing their carbon footprint, such as the hard-to-abate sectors, to contribute to emissions reduction and drive green investments. They provide a mechanism for these sectors, which cannot easily or quickly reduce their emissions, to still participate in climate change mitigation efforts. This flexibility allows for a more inclusive transition to a low-carbon economy, where all actors can play a part.

Nature-based solutions, particularly Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+), play a significant role in the carbon offsets arena. With the market’s exponential growth, investors are increasingly attracted to sectors such as plantation forestry, especially in Africa and other developing regions rich in forest resources.

The carbon market undeniably provides several benefits, including driving investments in green technologies and conservation projects, creating economic incentives for emissions reduction, and potentially accelerating the transition to a low-carbon economy. However, the prioritization of market mechanisms and the neoliberal foundation on which it is based undermine collective action and democratic decision-making, perpetuating global inequalities while serving as a pretext for economic expansion, which overshadows genuine environmental progress.

By reducing the value of ecosystems to their carbon storage capacity, this approach enables the privatization of commons. It increases corporate control over forest resources, ignoring the intrinsic value of ecosystems and their broader ecological functions. Through the implementation of such a market-based mechanism, wealthy nations and corporations are able to effectively buy their way out of their emission reduction responsibilities by merely investing in offset projects, while developing countries bear the brunt of climate change impacts and are left to adapt to a changing environment. This dynamic perpetuates the historical extraction of resources and labour from the Global South, fueling the consumption patterns and development agendas of the Global North.

Carbon markets also enable greenwashing, where polluters make false claims of emission reduction achieved. . Wealthy nations and corporations in the Global North are effectively outsourcing their emissions reduction responsibilities to the Global South through offset projects. Whether these projects provide an added value to emission reduction is often questionable, and the promised benefits to local communities often do not materialise.

Carbon offset projects perpetuate neocolonial power dynamics by reinforcing dependency relationships. Developing countries, in their pursuit of investment and revenue, may become reliant on carbon offset projects funded by entities from the Global North. This dependency can limit their agency in negotiating project terms, leading to deals that favour foreign investor interests over those of local communities.

The focus on market-based solutions diverts attention from the need for more fundamental structural changes in energy, transportation, and industrial systems. Rather, land grabs, displacement of Indigenous communities, and the destruction of biodiverse ecosystems to make way for monoculture plantations optimised for carbon removal have become the dominant trend of carbon offset projects.
The complexities of land rights in Africa

Land rights in Africa are inherently tied to a complex historical narrative of colonial exploitation, dispossession, and ongoing struggles for justice and recognition. The legacy of colonial land grabs, where Indigenous communities were forcibly removed from their ancestral lands, continues to cast a long shadow over present-day land tenure systems.

Customary land tenure, prevalent in many African societies, is rooted in unwritten rules and cultural practices that recognize collective community rights. This system is deeply intertwined with cultural identity and traditional ways of life. However, customary land tenure frequently comes into conflict with statutory or formal land tenure regimes imposed during the colonial era and perpetuated in the post-independence period.

The interplay between customary and statutory land tenure regimes has resulted in tensions and insecurity for local communities. Customary systems provide a sense of communal ownership and connection to the land but are often not formally recognized or protected by national laws and policies. Statutory systems, on the other hand, are typically based on individual land ownership and privatization, which often marginalizes traditional land use practices and excludes communities from decision-making processes.

Many African countries inherited unequal land distribution patterns and a history of dispossession from their colonial past, perpetuating social and economic inequalities. This has fueled ongoing land reform movements and demands for the recognition of customary land rights, as well as the redistribution of land to address historical injustices.

Women play a pivotal role in African agriculture, yet face significant discrimination in land rights. Customary laws often restrict women’s land ownership and inheritance rights. According to the UN, women own less than 20% of the world’s land, with the disparity particularly acute in Africa. Efforts to address this, such as Kenya’s 2010 constitution recognizing women’s equal rights to land, have faced challenges in implementation.

Land rights in Africa are further complicated by contestations over natural resources, particularly in regions rich in minerals, oil, or valuable ecosystems. The extraction of natural resources has often led to the displacement of local communities, environmental degradation, and conflicts over land ownership. The entry of foreign investors and the establishment of conservation areas or carbon offsets exacerbate these tensions, marginalizing and excluding local communities from decisions about their own land.
Carbon markets and the new contestations for land rights

The emergence of carbon markets has ignited a fresh wave of land rights disputes in Africa, exacerbating the already intricate issues surrounding land ownership and utilisation. The growing demand for carbon offsets has sparked violent land grabs, frequently infringing upon the rights of local and indigenous communities. Several instances of community rights violations have surfaced, with projects being undertaken without adequate consultation or consent from those bearing the brunt of the impact.

The imposition of conservation or renewable energy projects without the free, prior, and informed consent of local communities, as outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, is leading to the destruction of biodiverse ecosystems, disruption of water cycles, and loss of habitat for endangered species. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, families were kicked off land they had owned and farmed for generations to make way for a carbon offsetting project for oil giant Total Energies.

This situation, dubbed the “new scramble for Africa,” mirrors the land grabs of the colonial era, perpetuating a cycle of dispossession and marginalisation. As concerning is the surge in carbon offsetting agreements between African nations and Middle Eastern investors, “the Dubai-Africa carbon deals”, raising pressing questions about equitable benefit distribution and the potential for greenwashing.

Projects centred on reforestation, afforestation, and conservation demand vast tracts of land, intensifying competition and pitting local communities against investors. The rights of indigenous peoples, who constitute a small global population yet safeguard a significant proportion of global biodiversity, are often disregarded, leading to land disputes, arrests, and property confiscation.

The implications of carbon market agreements, which can span decades, are profound and far-reaching. Many of these transactions have occurred unbeknownst to governments in many African regions. Instances of “carbon cowboys” employing violence and deception to expel Indigenous people from their territories have surfaced. The vast expanse of land and labour devoted to tree-planting initiatives has often resulted in food shortages and unequal benefit distribution.

REDD+ projects aimed at reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation have had mixed outcomes. While they attract funding for forest conservation and infrastructure, they have also constrained Indigenous communities’ livelihoods and, in certain cases, led to forced evictions and harassment. The operations of Green Resources, funded by Nordic countries, encapsulate the troubling trends within carbon market projects. In Uganda, Green Resources’ endeavors have directly impacted over 8,000 people, including instances of forced evictions and restricted access to essential resources. With a long-term lease to sell carbon credits, the company has worsened food insecurity, caused the loss of land access, and contributed to environmental degradation through the use of agrochemicals.

The pursuit of corporate “climate neutral” targets has fueled the demand for forest-based carbon offsets, with Global North companies like KLM and Philips engaging in projects of questionable impact. The Kikonda Forest Restoration Project in Uganda, involving KLM, faced allegations of violating land use rights, as documented in the Gold Standard’s 2016 report. The jurisdictional approach to carbon crediting, introduced through Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, has introduced further complexities.

This approach has ignited disputes between Indigenous groups and governments over carbon ownership, as witnessed in Indonesia, Kenya, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. This is typified by the Kenyan government’s eviction of the Ogiek community from the Mau Forest, purportedly in the name of climate action and forest protection. Indigenous communities have resorted to legal action, challenging their government’s claims of state ownership of carbon.
Navigating the tensions: Towards equitable solutions

Carbon markets have emerged as a pivotal mechanism in the global effort to combat climate change, offering incentives for emissions reduction and economic opportunities. However, this neoliberal environmental agenda unveils and exacerbates historical and current inequalities, perpetuating a form of neocolonialism that shifts the burden of mitigating climate change to less developed regions.

Carbon markets enable various forms of colonialism – green, carbon, and neo – all of which contribute to environmental injustices and power imbalances between the Global North and South. Green colonialism co-opts environmental narratives to perpetuate power imbalances, dispossession, and environmental injustices. Carbon colonialism allows wealthy nations and corporations to outsource their emissions reduction responsibilities by purchasing carbon credits from developing countries. Neocolonialism is reinforced as the Global North maintains economic and environmental dominance through these market mechanisms.

To build a more just and sustainable future, the structural inequalities and the neoliberal foundations perpetuating global carbon inequalities need to be addressed by prioritising collective action and democratic governance. Regulatory frameworks that protect community land rights and incorporate customary land tenure systems must be strengthened. Local communities and Indigenous knowledge must be centered in decision-making processes regarding land use. Ensure free, prior, and informed consent of local communities for any initiatives impacting their lands and resources. Promote sustainable development aligned with local needs and priorities and provide access to legal support and capacity building for affected communities.

The challenge before us is significant, but so is the opportunity to redefine our relationship with the land, each other, and our shared planet. The path forward requires a fundamental rethinking of our approach to climate change mitigation. We must move beyond market-based solutions that risk perpetuating injustice and embrace strategies that centre on social equity, ecological integrity, and the rights of local communities. Researchers, policymakers, and global citizens have a collective responsibility to ensure that our efforts to combat climate change do not come at the cost of the most vulnerable.


Thelma Arko is currently a postdoctoral researcher at Utrecht University, where she supports efforts to democratize the discourse around Just Transitions in Africa.