admin
Cliff Chiduku-Herald Correspondent
Last week, Parliament began nationwide consultations to gather views on the Climate Change Bill.
The Bill provides a framework for streaming climate issues into the national development agenda.
The legislation also seeks to establish regulatory framework for greenhouse gas emissions, fostering low carbon development strategies, carbon trading mechanisms and slow down on ozone layer depletion.
Zimbabwe is a state party to the Conference of the Parties (COP) under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Over the years, the country has actively participated in various COP meetings and has committed to addressing climate change through national policies and international agreements.
As Zimbabwe drafts the Climate Change Bill, it is critical to consider the merits and demerits of strategies that can contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
One such mechanism is the use of carbon credits. These tools represent a key component of global climate policy and can be crucial in Zimbabwe’s efforts to mitigate climate change.
Carbon credits are certificates that allow holders to emit certain amounts of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases. These credits can be traded, thereby creating a financial incentive for companies and individuals to reduce their emissions.
They can also provide financial rewards for businesses or individuals who reduce their emissions, encouraging innovation and investment in green technologies. Crucially, revenue generated from selling carbon credits can be used to fund green projects.
So, implementing a carbon credit system aligns Zimbabwe with international climate agreements and standards and potentially opening up international funding and support.
However, the effective implementation of such noble initiatives requires a robust regulatory framework to ensure transparency, accountability and fair-trading practices. Carbon credit markets can be volatile, where prices fluctuate, and this may impact on the predictability of returns for emission reduction projects.
While incorporating carbon credits into Zimbabwe’s Climate Change Bill offers a promising pathway to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, stimulate economic growth, and promote sustainable development, it has its own downside.
Critics of carbon credits always point to the economic disparity they reinforce.
Developed countries, with their historical responsibility for the bulk of industrial emissions, continue to emit large amounts of greenhouse gases.
By purchasing carbon credits, these nations essentially buy the absolute right to pollute from poorer countries, which sell their capacity to reduce emissions. Such transactions can be seen as a perpetuation of economic exploitation, where wealthier nations benefit at the expense of poorer ones.
As an example, while a European multinational company can afford to buy carbon credits in Zimbabwe to offset its emissions, a poor tobacco farmer may be forced to alter traditional land use practices to create these offsets.
By and large, the financial benefits accrued from such transactions often do not trickle down to a person in rural Chiredzi, but are instead absorbed by someone in ivory tower, thereby perpetuating a cycle of poverty and dependency.
Carbon credit schemes often target developing countries for emission reduction projects, such as reforestation or renewable energy installations.
While these projects can have environmental benefits per se, they sometimes impose restrictions on local communities’ use of their own natural resources.
For instance, forests that are usually accessible for firewood, grazing, or agriculture purposes may be restricted to sequester carbon, thereby affecting local livelihoods and food security.
The implementation of such projects can lead to the displacement of communities, where local communities are evicted from their ancestral land to make way for carbon offset projects. This not only disrupts social structures, but also erases cultural and historical connections to land, echoing the practices of colonial displacement.
All along, the governance of carbon credit systems often lies in the palms of international bodies and corporations based in developed countries.
These entities set the rules of the game and prices. What then it means is that these entities have influence on how climate actions are executed, even in developing nations.
This power imbalance reflects colonial structures, where a few developed countries dictate terms to their developing counterparts, more often without adequate representation or consideration of local contexts.
Addressing climate change requires global support and cooperation and all efforts must be rooted in fairness and justice.
This means instead of relying on carbon credits, a more equitable approach would involve direct investments in sustainable development in developing countries.
This includes transferring clean technologies, building local capacities and ensuring financial flows directly benefit the communities that are most impacted by climate change.
More importantly, wealthier countries have a moral obligation to take radical actions in reducing emissions domestically rather than outsourcing their responsibilities.
The principle of climate justice recognises historical responsibilities and provides for the payment of reparations and support for adaptation and resilience-building in vulnerable communities.
A radical shift towards more equitable and just climate actions is critical to ensure the fight against climate change benefits all, rather than reinforcing old patterns of exploitation.
While carbon credits are a market-based solution to climate change, they risk perpetuating the inequalities they aim to address.
By allowing developed countries to continue their high-emission lifestyles while offloading the burden on the developing world, carbon credits can be seen as a new form of neo-colonialism.
Having said that, it is incumbent upon Zimbabwe to exercise extreme caution in drafting its climate legislation, otherwise the country would suffer the “cobra effect”, where an attempted solution to a climate problem actually makes it worse. Food for thought!
Cliff Chiduku is a communication, public policy and governance expert with interests in climate change, agriculture and environmental issues. He writes in his personal capacity. Feedback: [email protected] or Call/App +263775716517.
Online Reporter