British Airways, Netflix, Meta and Gucci are among the major international brands facing questions over their use of a controversial scheme to cut their greenhouse gas emissions, The i Paper can reveal.
The companies have been investing in a flagship carbon offsetting scheme in Kenya. It aims to remove millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by ensuring swathes of grasslands, that can help absorb carbon, are restored.
The brands have paid millions of pounds for so-called carbon credits from the project, which they then use to offset the emissions they make.
However, in January, a Kenyan court ruled the land being used for the scheme was acquired unlawfully from indigenous tribespeople who, it has been claimed, had suffered human rights abuses.
The court heard allegations that armed rangers used to protect the conservation areas had been involved in “several instances of violence” as they quelled “any opposition by the community”. However, it did not come to any judgement on this aspect of the claim.
BA told The i Paper it is no longer using the Kenyan scheme and will be examining the issues raised by the judgement.
All allegations of wrongdoing have been vigorously denied by the Northern Rangelands Trust (NRT), which manages the project. The NRT said it did not own or acquire the land, which it said remains in the ownership and control of local communities.
Carbon offsetting is often used by firms with a large environmental footprint to reduce emissions and hit net-zero targets.
The NRT claims it will remove and store 50 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over the course of 30 years – the equivalent of the emissions of more than 10 million cars – as well as providing much-needed funds for local communities.
With the Kenyan court ruling the NRT’s conservancy areas were established illegally, the legitimacy of the carbon-capture schemes it operates are now at threat.
In November 2021 a report from the California-based Oaklands Institute contained testimony from indigenous people who claimed they had been forcibly removed from the land and that human rights abuses had been committed against them. These claims are also denied by those running the scheme.
While there is no suggestion the major international brands were involved or aware of any wrongdoing, campaigners are urging them to stop investing in the project.
Caroline Pearce, director of campaign group Survival International, said: “This ruling is a first step in holding NRT accountable for its blatant violations of indigenous peoples’ land rights.
“Our message to any company considering buying these credits is: don’t. You will be trampling on the rights of indigenous peoples while doing nothing to combat climate change.”
She added: “It confirms what Survival’s investigations highlighted: that there is no legal basis for a large portion of NRT’s hugely profitable carbon project. This is a significant blow to NRT and the broader fortress conservation model it follows. ”
With governments and companies rushing to hit net-zero targets, many are adopting carbon offsetting and buying carbon credits to reach carbon-neutral status.
Carbon offsetting is a process that involves a reduction in, or removal of, carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas emissions from the atmosphere in order to compensate for emissions made elsewhere.
This offers companies an environmental solution for the company so they can claim to have achieved net-zero without altering its production line or activities.
However, this does not reduce the amount of carbon dioxide already produced and emitted into the atmosphere, which will continue to contribute to global warming and climate change.
Emissions reductions from offsetting projects are first verified for accuracy by a third party. After verification, they are sold as a carbon credit or unit which represents a certain volume of emissions reductions.
The money received from the sale of this unit provides an incentive for the offsetting project developer to reduce emissions, and the purchase and subsequent retirement of this credit gives the offset buyer a measurable reduction to claim.
Credits that are traded in this manner are often referred to as making up voluntary carbon markets.
The Verified Carbon Standard Program, which is operated by US-based firm Verra, is the world’s most widely used greenhouse gas crediting scheme.
The court case was brought by 165 members of communities affected by the conservation areas claiming the land was taken “without participation or involvement of the community” and the NRT was also accused of human rights abuses against indigenous tribespeople.
This focused on activities by armed rangers who are employed to protect the conservation area. The court ordered the rangers to leave the conservation areas. The NRT denied the ruling against rangers applied to its staff.
Tom Lalampaa, chief executive of the NRT, said: “There is no evidence of any NRT ranger committing a crime or human rights abuse. No court has ever ruled on such allegations, no charges have been filed, and no criminal case has ever been brought against any NRT ranger, conservancy ranger, or any other NRT-affiliated personnel.
“Despite repeated false claims by Survival, no credible evidence has been presented to support these accusations. The Kenya Government – both at the National and County levels – as well as independent researchers, have investigated these claims and found no substantiating evidence.”
Lalaampa added: “The court ruling does not affect NRT rangers. The judgment affects conservancy rangers and community scouts employed by the community conservancies, who are all local residents. As a result, 53 individuals now face the loss of their livelihoods.”
In 2022, the Nature Conservancy in Kenya commissioned a report to investigate the claims of human rights abuses at the carbon offsetting projects which found no evidence to back the claims.
British Airways told The i Paper it has ceased buying carbon credits from the NRT conservancies in early 2023.
A spokesman for the UK’s flag carrier said: “We are examining the details contained within this judgment and no longer work with this organisation.”
Despite multiple requests for comment Gucci’s owner Kering, Meta and Netflix had not responded at the time of publication.
Comments
Leave a Comment