Since 2021, initial implementation of a eucalyptus monoculture project has put the populations of the Plateaux and Djouori-Agnili departments on alert. These departments are in the Haut-Ogooué province of Gabon, in Central Africa. Gabon belongs to the Congo Basin, which is considered to be the second largest tropical forest after the Amazon. More than 80 percent of the country’s territory is covered by forest; our focus in this article is on the savannahs of the Batéké Plateaux, a different kind of ecosystem with unique landscapes.
In the departments of Plateaux and Djouori-Agnili, like in many parts of the world, agriculture as well as the sale of raw, and/or processed products from the crops grown, represent the main sources of subsistence for most of the population. This is why the announcement to implement a monoculture mega-project on the Plateau has caused great concern among communities in the region.
Concerns have grown upon hearing that the project promoter also intends to sell carbon credits from the planting of the eucalyptus trees. Consultants for these polluting companies try to convince governments that it is important to plant trees in order to protect forests and help the climate.
In general, when companies come with their consultants to a country, they make promises that their tree plantations will support the national economy, protect the forest and create jobs. They talk to leaders about carbon and the climate, claiming that these trees will protect the environment. In reality, their true intention is to appropriate community lands so that they can plant trees for profit. In the case of the eucalyptus project in the Bateke Plateaux in Gabon, the Sequoia company has already registered its eucalyptus plantation project with Verra, the main organization that certifies carbon credit projects. (1) This would suggest that the eucalyptus project in the Bateke Plateaux, called AODA, is also envisioned as a carbon credit project.
The eucalyptus monoculture project is falsely named LAPHO (Leconi Agroforestery Project in Haut-Ogooué), a clear contradiction because eucalyptus does not lend itself to agroforestry. The project claims to have obtained 60,000 hectares for the planting of eucalyptus in this savannah region, a serious threat both to the people living on the plateaux and to the ecology.
The company promoting this project is Sequoia Plantation, which was created by a fund based in the United Arab Emirates (Abu Dhabi). The main shareholder is Gagan Gupta, the former director of Olam Gabon – a company which has taken over almost all of Gabon's economic sectors. The Sequoia project would apparently constitute a group of economic activities under the management of the Gabon Special Economic Zone (GSEZ). GSEZ is considered to be a front company for the Bongo family, which ruled Gabon for decades until it was overthrown in a military coup in 2023.
During the Covid-19 period in 2021, populations on the Plateau noticed the movement of vehicles and heavy machinery behind the village of Kandouo, in the eastern part of Haut-Ogooué province. The earthworks for a nursery and housing for workers were carried out without consulting the populations. In the process, the graves of their ancestors were razed. The concerned families approached the operators on the ground to complain about this situation; the operators told them to take up their concern with the president (of the country) at the time, Ali Bongo Ondimba. Thus, it became evident that the Bongo family was involved in this project. Going about setting up the plantations in this way – without public and participatory consultation with local populations – clearly demonstrated an abuse of power and a disregard for Gabonese regulations. After these occurrences, news of the project spread throughout society.
It was in this context that the organization, CREPB (Collectif des Ressortissants et Ecologistes des Plateaux Batéké), began engaging with ministries and institutions of the Gabonese government in early 2023. Yet their requests to access documentation on the project were ignored – revealing the dubious evolution of the project. The CREPB has initiated multiplied administrative procedures, organized press conferences to challenge national and international opinion and informed about the dangers of plantations and non-regulatory procedures of the project. The actions of CREPB have prompted the Sequoia company to turn to the Prime Minister's Office for support.
Meanwhile, the CREPB and JVE Associations (Young Volunteers for the Environment) organized and carried out a collaborative awareness mission in the Plateaux, in December 2023. Eventually, after continued pressure from the ground, Sequoia organized a so-called public consultation ceremony on July 31, 2023. However, instead of holding this event in the localities affected by the project in the Plateaux and Djouori-Agnili departments, the company organized the activity in Franceville, several kilometers from the site planned for the eucalyptus plantations. Sequoia company also publicly declared the cessation of its activities on December 7, 2023 by sending a letter to the Prime Minister's Office and four other ministries.
On March 23 and 24, 2024, the company resumed its consultations. This included a consultation in the village of Kandouo, which is adjacent to the Sequoia project plantations, and one in Bongoville, further away from the plantation site. On May 8, 2024, Sequoia submitted its environmental impact study report to the Department of Environment and Sustainable Development. The Department issued a press release on May 22 calling on interested parties to view and comment on the report. Four civil society organisations submitted a joint observation on the report, highlighting the project's shortcomings and the serious dangers it poses.
Among other things, the organisations showed (1) the discrepancy between the description of the project and its actual content; (2) the lack of participatory mapping; (3) the botched study parameters (e.g. failure to take into account animal and hydrological resources; small sampling sizes; and false identification of species in sites outside the area intended for exploitation); (4) the risks of groundwater pollution with pesticides; 5) the risks of drying up groundwater sources; (6) environmental disruption (through the destruction of plant and animal species); (7) the loss of biodiversity; (8) the risks of mega-fires; (9) the risks of the appearance of serious illnesses in impacted populations due to the effects of pesticides and the company's activities; (10) the risks of endangering local populations and forcing them to emigrate; (11) the lack of mitigation measures to address these risks; and (12) the farce of the public consultations. In short, the company's environmental impact study report had very serious omissions and shortcomings.
Despite the evidence of these shortcomings, the committee that evaluated the impact study chose only to address the discrepancy between the formulation of the project and its content, the absence of a budgeted environmental management plan, and the absence of a project management monitoring committee. Based on this reduced list of deficiencies, the evaluation committee rejected the report at first reading, and asked Sequoia to address or complete these elements.
The numerous missions that CREPB and others carried out in the heart of the Batéke Plateaux revealed that the population totally rejecty the Sequoia company's eucalyptus plantation project. The testimony of the district chief Djouani/Ompouyi reflects the opinion expressed in all the villages we visited: “We will never accept the monopolization of our land for eucalyptus trees. The Téké people only plant trees that nourish; go and see all our old villages and you will find: mango trees, safou trees, avocado trees – not the trees that will destroy our land, not the eucalyptus trees.” Except for the divided opinions in the village of Kandouo (where the nurseries are located), the people of all the other localities in the departments concerned are 100 percent hostile to the plantation project. The same goes for all the villages of Plateaux and Djouori Agnili, as well as the towns of Leconi and Bongoville. A survey of 1,432 people that CREPB carried out recorded 100 percent rejection of the project.
Since then, the organisations CREPB, JVE, Copil-Citoyen, Muyissi Environnement and the Bongo Ayouma Foundation have come together to collectively use administrative procedures to oppose the project. Specific actions they are taking include: drafting and submitting interpellations to governing bodies; analysing the Sequoia environmental impact study; and producing and submitting their collective observations to the Department of the Environment and Sustainable Development, as well as to television and radio broadcasts. (2) The work of these associations is resonating positively with national and international opinion, which is taking up the cause to preserve the environment of the Batéke Plateaux.
The Prefect of Djouori Agnili called for the resumption of real public consultations that respect the legal standards. Meanwhile, local populations held a public demonstration to oppose the project when the Minister of Agriculture visited Kandouo and Bongoville. Furthermore, high authorities inside the current government of Gabon – such as the Ministers of Oil and Tourism, and the First Quaestor of the Economic and Social Environmental Council (member of the parliamentary assembly responsible for internal finances and administration) – have openly expressed an unfavorable position on the project. (3)
The struggle of local populations and environmental associations against the Sequoia company's eucalyptus project is currently at a cross-road. Despite well-documented proof of the dangers of eucalyptus monocultures, and the overwhelming opposition of neighboring villages to the plantation project, Sequoia's illegal actions are gaining momentum.
But the populations and associations that oppose the project are on alert and are closely following its development. People are deeply concerned that the plantations will jeopardize their food sovereignty, and they have expressed their opposition to them. Community leaders continue to repeat what communities have expressed they need in terms of development:
“We need solutions to the elephant intrusions, and we need to improve family farming; plus road construction. No to eucalyptus,” notes the village chief of Ekouyi. The village chief of Souba, Department of Djouori Agnili, adds: “No to eucalyptus trees, yes to tractors for local crops.”
Likewise, the Chiefs of the villages of Saye, Kabala and Akou say: “We need solutions for agriculture and road construction, not eucalyptus,” and “We need mechanization for our agriculture, because in the Plateaux we plant cassava, pineapple, corn and yams, not eucalyptus.”
DR. René Noël Poligui (CREPB) and Remi Messessi Komlan (JVE GABON)
(1) Leconi Agroforestry Project in Haut-Ogooue (LAPHO). VCS ID-Nr. 4543. Project «under development».
(2) Radio Broadcasts.
(3) https://magazinesuperstar.com/solidarite-internationale-bertin-kourouvi-sallie-a-bertrand-zibi-pour-contrer-les-plantations-deucalyptus-au-gabon/
Buying carbon credits from forests or tree planting projects under the REDD mechanism (Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) has become very popular worldwide. REDD has enabled many companies and governments to claim they are ‘carbon neutral’– despite the fact that the mechanism has proven to be a failure. This strategy fails because carbon ‘stored’ in trees, once emitted, has a very different impact on the climate than carbon emitted from underground ‘stores’ of oil, gas or coal (1). Thus, after more than 18 years of REDD projects and programmes worldwide, the climate crisis has only worsened. Meanwhile, the only way to reverse climate chaos is to stop the extraction of fossil fuels.
Following the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 – the gathering that put the climate issue on the international agenda – the Thai government started to formulate and implement its ‘climate policy’. Thailand has been particularly keen to base its policy on carbon offsetting. Carbon offsetting is an attractive option for polluting industries, because it is cheaper than actually reducing their emissions from burning fossil fuels. Carbon offsets allow companies to buy carbon credits from a project located elsewhere; in other words, it enables them to ‘buy’ the right to continue polluting.
After the REDD mechanism was launched internationally in 2007, the Thai ministry of Natural Resources and Environment created the Thailand Greenhouse Gas Organisation (TGO) to promote carbon offsetting and carbon trading. In 2009, Thailand became a member of the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) of the World Bank to ‘get ready’ for REDD. In 2014, the government set up the Thailand Voluntary Emission Reduction (T-VER) scheme, regulated by the TGO. After ratifying the Paris Agreement (2016), Thailand formulated its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) to combat climate change, which included: reducing its GHG emissions by up to 40% by the year 2030; becoming ‘carbon-neutral’ by 2050; and becoming ‘net-zero’ in terms of GHG emissions by 2065.
The World Bank's support, via the FCPF, has been critical in enabling the Thai government to formulate its REDD strategy for the period 2023-2037. In 2021, the government presented its REDD strategy to the Thai parliament for approval. The target of the strategy is to increase the country's forest cover from 31% (the current amount) to up to 40% in 2037. The Thai government claims this would lead to CO2 emission reductions of up to 120 million tons. While this proposal is still awaiting parliamentarian approval – and the voluminous funding expected to come from both the World Bank and other donors following said approval – the Thai government announced an even more ambitious plan for offsetting CO2 emissions. It aims to use so-called ‘green areas’ to offset GHG emissions, with the goal of covering 55% of the country’s territory (more than half!) with these areas.
The creation of ‘green areas’ instead of forests creates incentives for private companies to invest in not just reforestation projects but, also, industrial oil palm plantations, and any kind of tree monoculture project – such as eucalyptus, acacia, rubber or teak plantations. These companies are then allowed to get carbon credits for these projects, which allegedly offset their emissions. In recent decades, industrial oil palm expansion has been one of the largest direct cause of tropical deforestation worldwide, and therefore a major source of CO2 emissions. At present, Thailand has about 1 million hectares of oil palm plantations and plans to further expand this area in the coming years (2). All industrial large-scale tree monoculture projects have major impacts, including massive land grabbing, ecological impacts, the use of violence, and forced evictions.
The plan to implement these ‘green areas’ and incorporate more than half of the country’s area into carbon offsetting schemes is being coordinated under the auspices of the T-VER programme. This plan anticipates an additional massive area of tree plantations totalling 30 million Rai (4.8 million hectares). As of September 2024, 460 projects had been registered under the programme, 87 of which involve tree plantations. The claim is that, together, they will purportedly prevent 13 million tons of CO2 emissions.
The central role that carbon offsets have in Thailand’s ‘climate policy’ can be better understood when one looks at Thailand’s economic development plans and energy matrix. Currently, 70% of Thailand’s GHG emissions come from the burning of fossil fuels. The 2024 draft energy plan of the government for the period of 2024-2037 foresees that fossil fuels – in particular gas and coal – will continue to be Thailand’s main source of energy, accounting for 48% of the country's energy supply. This source will be complemented by solar energy and other renewable energy sources (32%), hydropower (17%), and other sources.
Thailand’s dependency on fossil fuels underpins the fact that its economic development policy is focused on implementing a network of 15 so-called “Special Economic Zones”, including so-called “economic corridors” (3). These areas ensure special conditions for investors, including tax incentives and concession periods of up to 99 years. These zones are expected to attract foreign investments, especially from China, Japan and the USA.
But these projects will inevitably also lead to more land- and sea-grabbing, as well as more fossil fuel-based GHG emissions, due to all the construction, transportation and industrial activities involved. For example, the Southern Economic Corridor (SEC) planned in the South of Thailand will cover 14 provinces. The pilot sites will be in the Ranong, Chumphon, Nakhon, Thammarat and Surat Thani provinces, covering a total area of 300,000 Rai (48,000 hectares). This project will include a deep sea port, and chemical, petroleum-based and food processing industries. The SEC will destroy coastal and forest areas, evict communities, and heavily impact the food security of nearby communities. For context, this is a region where numerous communities depend on mangroves; the region also includes a Ramsar site (4) for biodiversity conservation.
Rather than addressing the severe problem of climate chaos and its root causes, the Thai government's ‘climate policy’ – like that of so many other nations – benefits international investors and the country's already privileged private sector. This 'climate policy' also provides an additional benefit to highly-polluting fossil fuel companies; it enables them to greenwash and direct attention away from destructive activities and violations they commit.
One example of companies greenwashing and distracting attention from violations they commit is the case of the Thai national oil and gas company, PTT. PTT imports gas from Myanmar to ensure gas provision in Thailand. The payments that PTT makes to the Myanmar military regime allows that regime to continue its bloody war against its own people (5). Air strikes by the Myanmar army have already killed thousands of Myanmar citizens, and millions of its citizens have become refugees. However, PTT with its participation in the T-VER offset programme projects an image of a socially and environmentally responsible company. In 2023, it announced it will ‘reforest’ 2 million rai (320,000 hectares) nationwide by 2030. Its CEO claims that PTT ‘has strictly adhered to its mission of maintaining energy security, as well as taking care of society and the environment over the past 45 years’ (6).
Communities in Thailand who live in, depend on and take care of forests have had to deal with at least two major threats: attacks on their territory as the result of a destructive economic policy (including the SEZs); and a violent and authoritarian conservationist policy that constantly tries to evict them from the forest (7). And now, the rush to install carbon projects that would take control over their land – all under the guise of ‘offsetting’ pollution elsewhere – is an additional threat they will increasingly face.
As for the Southern Economic Corridor (SEC) in the South of Thailand, communities have already been protesting these plans. They have written letters to investors expressing their concerns, including about how this project is a threat to their livelihoods. But, like in other countries, communities in Thailand often accept carbon projects because of the benefits promised to them by the government and NGOs. In Thailand, 89 communities registered 121 so-called ‘community forests’ under the T-VER scheme, including communities in the South that depend on mangrove forests. Perhaps one reason communities go along with these projects is because they do not directly involve the overtly visible destruction that other projects – such as mining, tree plantations, deep sea ports, and industrial zones – entail.
Consequently, several communities in the South of Thailand have already signed contracts for up to 30 years to sell carbon credits (8). According to these contracts, communities would receive 20% of the carbon credit sales, while 70% would go to the carbon project developer, and 10% to the government. To receive their part, the community needs to make sure that the carbon ‘stored’ in the mangrove areas will not only be kept there, but will also increase over the project period. However, what this means in practice is not clear; the contract does not clearly talk about, for example, restrictions on entering and using the mangrove forests. What the contract for the carbon project does say is that it will pay community people to work for the project – which means monitoring the mangrove area against potential threats. But what are those threats, if the communities have always taken care of the forest?
Experience elsewhere has shown us that such ‘threats’ are most often the community members themselves, when they want to cut down a tree or otherwise intend to ‘disturb’ the carbon stored in the mangrove. These projects also engender conflicts within communities. For example, it is common for there to be divisions between a minority that in some way benefits from the project (e.g. through jobs), and a majority that is excluded from these benefits and even harmed by the project. Conflicts are very likely in the case of Thailand, where people on the ground in forest areas have historically been ignored, persecuted, and seen as not having any right to the land. Due to this historical precedent of ignoring forest dwellers' rights, the new ‘right holders’ of carbon (companies promoting and purchasing the carbon credits) usually do not properly inform the community about their projects, let alone seek their consent.
But increasingly, communities and people’s movements across Thailand have begun to talk about and seek to better understand what is really going on with the government's ‘climate policy’. They are talking about how carbon offset schemes tend to worsen the climate chaos and cause more social injustice, rather than doing the opposite (9).
Their struggle can help us address the multiple crises Thailand is facing, by pointing us in a new direction: instead of promoting carbon offset schemes that increase corporate profits based on the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, we can promote and recognize the rights of forest-dependent communities – such as the communities in the Southern mangrove forests of Thailand who depend on and have taken care of these forests for many generations. Supporting their struggles, and their demands, can advance both social and climate justice in the country.
WRM International Secretariat, with input from Surin Onprom (independent researcher) and Bandita Yangdee (Center for Ecological Awareness Building)
(1) https://www.wrm.org.uy/15-years-of-redd-is-all-carbon-the-same
(2) https://www.krungsri.com/en/research/industry/industry-outlook/agriculture/palm-oil/io/plam-oil-industry-2024-2026
(3) https://www.thailand.go.th/issue-focus-detail/006-023
(4) So-called wetlands of international importance, see www.ramsar.org
(5) https://globalmayday.net/bloodmoneymyanmar/
(6) https://www.nationthailand.com/business/corporate/40030072
(7) https://www.wrm.org.uy/bulletin-articles/forest-colonialism-in-thailand
(8) https://dialogue.earth/en/nature/thailand-turns-to-mangrove-carbon-credits-despite-scepticism/
(9) The People's Network for Climate Justice and Against Greenwashing. Stop Greenwashing Say No to Carbon Offset End the false solutions to climate crisis. 14 October 2024, See here.
In 2023, Indonesian president Jokowi´s administration announced a food production program of 2 million hectares in the South of Papua, focused on rice and sugar cane plantations, ignoring that similar programs in the past were complete failures, leading to massive land grabbing and rights violations of indigenous peoples, besides more corporate profits.
The new program “PSN Merauke”, being implemented at a high speed, might become the biggest deforestation project worldwide, is overlapping with customary lands and will directly affect 40,000 indigenous people.
Read PUSAKA´s briefing paper calling for the immediate suspension of the PSN Merauke in English here.