Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

New report slams carbon offset project in Cambodia for violating Indigenous rights

News Feed
Wednesday, March 13, 2024

When Suwanna Gauntlett started working on conservation in Cambodia in the early 2000s, hundreds of hectares of rainforest were set ablaze every month to clear the land for illegal sales, and dozens of tigers and elephants had been killed.  Gauntlett had founded the Wildlife Alliance in 1994 to fight tiger poaching in the Russian Far East, and a decade later expanded the nonprofit’s work to India, Ecuador, Myanmar, and Thailand. In 2000, Cambodia was their next frontier, home to one of the last giant rainforests in Southeast Asia stretching across the country’s Southern Cardamom region — what Gauntlett described as a “remote and completely lawless province.”  “There were no rangers, no park headquarters, no ranger stations, no law enforcement at all in the area,” Gauntlett said in a 2016 interview with Mongabay. “It was literally the wild, wild west.” Gauntlett spoke with the news outlet to celebrate the establishment of a new national park, which promised to protect more than a million acres of rainforest. It was a big victory for Gauntlett’s organization, and helped spur an even more expansive project in partnership with the Cambodian government to protect rainforests and sell carbon credits as corporate offsets to fund the work. The project is part of the United Nations framework called REDD+, which stands for “‘Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries.” The idea is that countries can fund environmental protection projects by selling a project’s carbon credits to corporations.  But that project, known as the Southern Cardamom REDD+, has come under fire from the nonprofit Human Rights Watch, an international human rights watchdog.  In a report released February 28, Human Rights Watch investigators describe how the project by the Wildlife Alliance and Cambodia’s Ministry of Environment repeatedly violated the rights of the Indigenous Chong peoples who have called the Cardamom mountains home for centuries.  According to the authors, the Wildlife Alliance and Cambodian government embarked on the project without first consulting with the Indigenous peoples who lived there, violating their right under international law to free, prior, and informed consent to projects on their land. The report also outlines how Indigenous people were prevented from farming on their land and even thrown in jail for collecting resin from trees. “This is my livelihood and tradition, and I am doing nothing wrong,” a man referred to as Chamson in the report told investigators.  Luciana Téllez, lead author of the Human Rights Watch report, said the findings reflect a broader trend globally in which Indigenous peoples and other traditional communities manage some of the best-preserved landscapes globally but are repeatedly marginalized and discriminated against.  “The push to increase the areas that are under protected status is not matched by an impulse to recognize these minority groups’ rights. And we need to see the pace of both of these things match each other,” Téllez said. “We need to see conservation moving at the same rhythm as the move to recognize, protect, uphold the rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities.” Overlooking Indigenous peoples while establishing conservation areas is a long-standing global problem. Settlers in the U.S. who saw the continent as a remote and lawless place established many national parks only after the removal of Indigenous peoples. But the practice continues across the globe: In Tanzania, the Indigenous Maasai people fled gunfire in 2022 to make way for a game reserve. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, park guards at Kahuzi-Biega National Park have killed Indigenous Batwa people in the name of conservation. Forced evictions are a feature, not a bug, of the practice known as fortress conservation: The United Nations estimates that since 1990, 250,000 people have lost their homes to make way for conservation projects.  Read Next How the world’s favorite conservation model was built on colonial violence Joseph Lee In order to comply with international law, conservation projects like the Southern Cardamom REDD+ project should conduct thorough consultation with Indigenous peoples before projects begin. The report noted that for years, Wildlife Alliance and Cambodian government officials made key decisions about the conservation project, including mapping the area, applying for funding, and signing contracts in the region, before embarking on consultations. Even the establishment of a national park in 2016 enclosed eight Chong communities before mapping or titling their traditional lands, the report found. Protecting conservation land at the cost of Indigenous rights is a problem that’s expected to continue as countries face increasing pressure to combat climate change. At least 190 nations have pledged to conserve 30 percent of the Earth’s lands and waters by 2030, many of which are home to Indigenous peoples, and the United Nations’ REDD+ framework has added financial incentives to these conservation efforts.  But Téllez said major questions remain about who actually benefits from carbon offset projects. Human Rights Watch found that in 2021, Southern Cardamom REDD+ made $18 million from carbon credit sales to multinational corporations. At the same time, Indigenous peoples described to investigators that the Wildlife Alliance’s enforcement of the REDD+ program cost them their livelihoods, including forcing some to borrow money when they were unable to farm on their family land.  “Everybody is banned from entering the forest, but many people have farmland there,” a woman named Sothy told investigators. Another named Pov said, “Wildlife Alliance came to cut down the banana trees. There was no warning or discussion prior to the destruction.” Téllez said a key problem is the lack of a legally binding benefit-sharing agreement to ensure that the communities affected receive a certain proportion of project funds. Wildlife Alliance and the Cambodian government had committed to complying with voluntary standards set by Verra, a company that sets quality-assurance standards on the voluntary carbon market. But Verra does not require that agreements be made with Indigenous communities to ensure they benefit financially. After learning of Human Rights Watch’s findings, Verra announced it would begin investigating the Southern Cardamom REDD+ project. Wildlife Alliance says the report is misleading. “Many of the criticisms the report makes about the Southern Cardamom project conveniently fit the narrative HRW had already created as part of their advocacy on international carbon markets,” the Wildlife Alliance said in a statement on their website.  The organization published a video this week of one of its community managers, Sokun Hort, denying that anyone had been evicted and saying that Human Rights Watch ignored broad community support for the project. The Wildlife Alliance and Cambodia’s Ministry of the Environment did not respond to requests for comment on the report.  Téllez of Human Rights Watch said the report reflects what investigators heard in dozens of interviews. Even a Cambodian government official told Human Rights Watch that the Wildlife Alliance had been “harassing poor people just for collecting forest products.”  Téllez is concerned by the organization’s continued denial of the allegations.  “There isn’t an acknowledgment that some people have been harmed by the project, and there isn’t an acknowledgment that those people are entitled to remedy,” she said. “And so we will continue demanding accountability.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline New report slams carbon offset project in Cambodia for violating Indigenous rights on Mar 13, 2024.

Human Rights Watch alleges Indigenous peoples were thrown off their land in name of conservation.

When Suwanna Gauntlett started working on conservation in Cambodia in the early 2000s, hundreds of hectares of rainforest were set ablaze every month to clear the land for illegal sales, and dozens of tigers and elephants had been killed. 

Gauntlett had founded the Wildlife Alliance in 1994 to fight tiger poaching in the Russian Far East, and a decade later expanded the nonprofit’s work to India, Ecuador, Myanmar, and Thailand. In 2000, Cambodia was their next frontier, home to one of the last giant rainforests in Southeast Asia stretching across the country’s Southern Cardamom region — what Gauntlett described as a “remote and completely lawless province.” 

“There were no rangers, no park headquarters, no ranger stations, no law enforcement at all in the area,” Gauntlett said in a 2016 interview with Mongabay. “It was literally the wild, wild west.”

Gauntlett spoke with the news outlet to celebrate the establishment of a new national park, which promised to protect more than a million acres of rainforest. It was a big victory for Gauntlett’s organization, and helped spur an even more expansive project in partnership with the Cambodian government to protect rainforests and sell carbon credits as corporate offsets to fund the work.

The project is part of the United Nations framework called REDD+, which stands for “‘Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries.” The idea is that countries can fund environmental protection projects by selling a project’s carbon credits to corporations. 

But that project, known as the Southern Cardamom REDD+, has come under fire from the nonprofit Human Rights Watch, an international human rights watchdog. 

In a report released February 28, Human Rights Watch investigators describe how the project by the Wildlife Alliance and Cambodia’s Ministry of Environment repeatedly violated the rights of the Indigenous Chong peoples who have called the Cardamom mountains home for centuries. 

According to the authors, the Wildlife Alliance and Cambodian government embarked on the project without first consulting with the Indigenous peoples who lived there, violating their right under international law to free, prior, and informed consent to projects on their land. The report also outlines how Indigenous people were prevented from farming on their land and even thrown in jail for collecting resin from trees. “This is my livelihood and tradition, and I am doing nothing wrong,” a man referred to as Chamson in the report told investigators. 

Luciana Téllez, lead author of the Human Rights Watch report, said the findings reflect a broader trend globally in which Indigenous peoples and other traditional communities manage some of the best-preserved landscapes globally but are repeatedly marginalized and discriminated against. 

“The push to increase the areas that are under protected status is not matched by an impulse to recognize these minority groups’ rights. And we need to see the pace of both of these things match each other,” Téllez said. “We need to see conservation moving at the same rhythm as the move to recognize, protect, uphold the rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities.”

Overlooking Indigenous peoples while establishing conservation areas is a long-standing global problem. Settlers in the U.S. who saw the continent as a remote and lawless place established many national parks only after the removal of Indigenous peoples. But the practice continues across the globe: In Tanzania, the Indigenous Maasai people fled gunfire in 2022 to make way for a game reserve. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, park guards at Kahuzi-Biega National Park have killed Indigenous Batwa people in the name of conservation. Forced evictions are a feature, not a bug, of the practice known as fortress conservation: The United Nations estimates that since 1990, 250,000 people have lost their homes to make way for conservation projects. 

In order to comply with international law, conservation projects like the Southern Cardamom REDD+ project should conduct thorough consultation with Indigenous peoples before projects begin. The report noted that for years, Wildlife Alliance and Cambodian government officials made key decisions about the conservation project, including mapping the area, applying for funding, and signing contracts in the region, before embarking on consultations.

Even the establishment of a national park in 2016 enclosed eight Chong communities before mapping or titling their traditional lands, the report found.

Protecting conservation land at the cost of Indigenous rights is a problem that’s expected to continue as countries face increasing pressure to combat climate change. At least 190 nations have pledged to conserve 30 percent of the Earth’s lands and waters by 2030, many of which are home to Indigenous peoples, and the United Nations’ REDD+ framework has added financial incentives to these conservation efforts. 

But Téllez said major questions remain about who actually benefits from carbon offset projects. Human Rights Watch found that in 2021, Southern Cardamom REDD+ made $18 million from carbon credit sales to multinational corporations. At the same time, Indigenous peoples described to investigators that the Wildlife Alliance’s enforcement of the REDD+ program cost them their livelihoods, including forcing some to borrow money when they were unable to farm on their family land. 

“Everybody is banned from entering the forest, but many people have farmland there,” a woman named Sothy told investigators. Another named Pov said, “Wildlife Alliance came to cut down the banana trees. There was no warning or discussion prior to the destruction.”

Téllez said a key problem is the lack of a legally binding benefit-sharing agreement to ensure that the communities affected receive a certain proportion of project funds. Wildlife Alliance and the Cambodian government had committed to complying with voluntary standards set by Verra, a company that sets quality-assurance standards on the voluntary carbon market. But Verra does not require that agreements be made with Indigenous communities to ensure they benefit financially. After learning of Human Rights Watch’s findings, Verra announced it would begin investigating the Southern Cardamom REDD+ project.

Wildlife Alliance says the report is misleading. “Many of the criticisms the report makes about the Southern Cardamom project conveniently fit the narrative HRW had already created as part of their advocacy on international carbon markets,” the Wildlife Alliance said in a statement on their website. 

The organization published a video this week of one of its community managers, Sokun Hort, denying that anyone had been evicted and saying that Human Rights Watch ignored broad community support for the project. The Wildlife Alliance and Cambodia’s Ministry of the Environment did not respond to requests for comment on the report. 

Téllez of Human Rights Watch said the report reflects what investigators heard in dozens of interviews. Even a Cambodian government official told Human Rights Watch that the Wildlife Alliance had been “harassing poor people just for collecting forest products.” 

Téllez is concerned by the organization’s continued denial of the allegations. 

“There isn’t an acknowledgment that some people have been harmed by the project, and there isn’t an acknowledgment that those people are entitled to remedy,” she said. “And so we will continue demanding accountability.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline New report slams carbon offset project in Cambodia for violating Indigenous rights on Mar 13, 2024.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Ecuador's Indigenous Defenders Face Growing Threats, Activists Say at UN Summit

By Oliver GriffinCALI, Colombia (Reuters) -Indigenous environmental defenders in Ecuador are suffering an increasing number of threats and...

CALI, Colombia (Reuters) - Indigenous environmental defenders in Ecuador are suffering an increasing number of threats and sometimes deadly attacks amid spiraling violence in the country, activists said on Friday at the U.N. COP16 nature talks in Colombia.Nearly 200 countries are gathered in the city of Cali in an attempt to agree on a deal to implement the landmark 2022 Kunming-Montreal Biodiversity Framework agreement that aims to end destruction of nature by 2030.Among the goals of that agreement was heightened protection for environmental defenders. But during the summit, slated to end late on Friday, Indigenous activists from Ecuador said danger for their communities was growing."It's become a tense and terrible problem in Ecuador," Juan Bay, president of the Waorani Indigenous community, told Reuters, adding that threats have increased since a 2023 referendum in Ecuador approved a ban on oil drilling in the Amazon.Ecuador has experienced rising violence in recent years at the hands of organized crime, with President Daniel Noboa declaring a state of internal armed conflict earlier this year and designating almost two dozen gangs as terrorist groups.Negotiations at COP16 include discussions around monitoring killings of people targeted for efforts to protect the environment, but a proposed measure for recording them does not go far enough, said Natalia Gomez, the climate change policy advisor for advocacy group, EarthRights."Unfortunately, that indicator being discussed is optional and binary, which means that governments will only say, 'Yes, we're doing it', or 'No, we're not doing it'," she said.According to the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity website, Ecuador has not reported on its aims to protect environmental defenders."Ecuador has seen an increase" in threats, Astrid Puentes, U.N. special rapporteur on the right to a healthy environment, told Reuters.Ecuador's government must comply with standards for environmental protection and implement protection measures for those who might receive threats, Puentes said.Ecuador's secretariat of indigenous peoples and nationalities did not immediately respond to questions from Reuters.Reported killings are creating a climate of fear for Indigenous communities trying to protect their homes, said Jhajayra Machoa, from CONFENIAE, the main organization of indigenous groups in Ecuador's Amazon."It's very hard to face this situation," she said.(Reporting by Oliver Griffin; Additional reporting by Alexandra Valencia in Quito; Editing by Jake Spring and Sandra Maler)Copyright 2024 Thomson Reuters.

Indigenous People March in Brazil's Capital Against Bill Limiting Land Rights

Hundreds of Indigenous people were marching Wednesday in Brazil’s capital, urging Congress to drop a proposed constitutional amendment that has the potential to paralyze and even reverse land allocations

BRASILIA, Brazil (AP) — Bearing images of animals and covered in body paint, hundreds of Indigenous people marched Wednesday in Brazil's capital, urging Congress to drop a proposed constitutional amendment that has the potential to paralyze and even reverse land allocations.The bill aims to add to the Constitution a legal theory, championed by the agribusiness caucus, that the date the Constitution was promulgated — Oct. 5, 1988 — should be the deadline for Indigenous peoples to have already either physically occupied claimed land or be legally fighting to reoccupy territory. Lawmakers from the caucus also claim it provides legal certainty for landholders.Indigenous rights groups have argued that establishing a deadline is unfair, as it does not account for expulsions and forced displacements of Indigenous populations, particularly during Brazil’s agriculture frontier expansion in the 20th century.“We are aware of the interests of mining companies, ranchers and oil companies in our lands. How many lives will be destroyed if this bill passes?” Alessandra Korap, an Indigenous leader of the Munduruku tribe, told The Associated Press.On Sept. 21, 2023, the Supreme Court rejected the deadline concept, which formed part of a lawsuit brought by Santa Catarina state. In the vote that secured the majority, Justice Luiz Fux argued that areas connected to Indigenous ancestry and traditions are protected by the Constitution, even if not officially recognized. It was a moment of widespread celebration among Indigenous communities and their advocates.One week after the ruling, pro-agribusiness lawmakers began pushing for congressional approval of the deadline. One initiative is the proposed constitutional amendment that the Indigenous movement fears will come up for a vote in the coming days.Congress also passed a law in December that established the 1988 deadline. The Indigenous movement and political parties appealed to the Supreme Court, which hasn't yet issued a ruling on the matter. During a speech in Congress, the author of the constitutional amendment, Sen. Hiran Gonçalves, stated that his proposal aims to settle the issue definitively, thereby ending legal uncertainty.Dinamam Tuxá, head of the rights group Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil, told the Associated Press that, if approved, the bill will lead to the suspension of Indigenous land demarcations, escalate socio-environmental conflicts and increase deforestation.Maisonnave reported from BrasilandiaThe Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

Analysis-Australian Mine Fight Reignites Aboriginal Heritage Tensions

By Melanie BurtonMELBOURNE (Reuters) - Wiradjuri elder Nyree Reynolds calls her home west of Sydney the valley of the Bilabula, the Indigenous name...

MELBOURNE (Reuters) - Wiradjuri elder Nyree Reynolds calls her home west of Sydney the valley of the Bilabula, the Indigenous name for its river. The river features in Wiradjuri stories about the creation of their land, she told state planning regulators, "And no one has the right to destroy this."On her objections, the Australian government in August ordered miner Regis Resources to find a new dam site for a A$1 billion ($685 million) gold project on the grounds its proposed location for storing rock and chemical waste would irreparably harm culture attached to the river.The decision by Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek under a rarely used Aboriginal heritage protection law has stoked an outcry from mining groups who say Regis followed all legal processes and the decision raises sovereign risk for developers.The government's action adds to the uncertainty miners have faced since iron ore giant Rio Tinto legally destroyed ancient Aboriginal rock shelters at Juukan Gorge four years ago and raises the urgency to overhaul heritage protection laws.At least three other resources projects are facing review, like Regis did, under Section 10 of the law that allows Aboriginal people to apply to protect areas important to them when other legal avenues have failed."You can get all the state environmental approvals, all the federal environmental approvals and at the end of the process a Section 10, ... essentially a federal minister can ... make your project unviable," said Warren Pearce, CEO of the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies. "That's the definition of sovereign risk."While Reynolds objected to Regis' mine, a local Aboriginal group representing Wiradjuri people, authorised by the state to speak for cultural heritage, had concluded that impacts from the project could be managed.Regis said in August it is considering its legal options after writing down the value of its project by more than $100 million.The decision on Regis' project was the second by the government in as many months to back Indigenous groups over miners.ERA, majority owned by mining giant Rio Tinto, is suing the government on procedural fairness grounds after it did not renew the miner's exploration lease on uranium rich land.Government officials and some investors say developers need to engage earlier and more deeply with Indigenous groups when planning projects, but new laws governing heritage protection that would assist the process are yet to arrive.The government has not said when it expects to finalise the legislation. Only Western Australia has made some heritage reforms, leaving the industry relying on a patchwork of old state legislation to manage heritage protection at a time when Australia is marketing itself as a supplier of ethical metals.Resources projects with outstanding Section 10 objections include miner Bellevue Gold's plan to dig under a desert lake and Woodside's Scarborough natural gas project that will feed a gas plant in a region rich in ancient rock art that the government has nominated for a UNESCO World Heritage listing. Both projects are in Western Australia.But not all objections are equal when it comes to politics, especially with the centre-left Labor government facing an election in 2025.Woodside is unlikely to face the same setback as Regis, said MST Marquee senior energy analyst Saul Kavonic, as the $12.5 billion Scarborough gas project is "extremely politically important to the Labor government in Western Australia".Plibersek's office said it could not comment on the Scarborough project as the issue is under consideration.Both Woodside and Bellevue said they take their responsibilities to manage Aboriginal cultural heritage seriously.Bellevue said it has permission from the Tjiwarl native title group to dig under the lake as part of a heritage management plan.The government's action comes after it failed in a referendum last year that sought to give Indigenous Australians special recognition in the country's constitution and an advisory voice to lawmakers.Some people think the government is now acting to appease inner city east coast voters who backed the referendum and who may want to vote for the Greens rather than support mining."Here is a government trying to scramble to make itself look good, because it absolutely gutted the opportunity for us to have a voice in Parliament," said Wonnarua man Scott Franks, who has filed three section 10s against developments in the state's coal rich Hunter Valley region and lost them all.When asked if she was catering to Green voters with her decision on Regis, Plibersek told reporters on Aug. 28 that she had consulted widely: "I made the decision based on facts."Australia's minister for Indigenous Australians, Malarndirri McCarthy, said the government was working hard with Aboriginal groups on new heritage protection laws."The Australian Government is deeply concerned about the destruction of First Nations heritage values anywhere in Australia," McCarthy said in a statement to Reuters.A key issue that needs to be addressed is to make clear exactly who developers need to consult to ensure projects do not harm important sites on the traditional lands or countries of Indigenous groups."Our whole objective is to remove this sort of uncertainty that people are dealing with to make it clear who speaks for the Country," Plibersek told Australian Broadcasting Corp on Aug. 28.Regis said it had consulted with 13 different groups and individuals during the permitting process."Regis takes its relationship with the Aboriginal stakeholders at our operations very seriously and conducted extensive engagement with Aboriginal parties from an early stage in the approvals process," it said in a statement to Reuters.To help miners manage consultations on protecting Aboriginal heritage while the rules are revised, the Responsible Investment Association Australasia, which counts 75% of the country's institutional investors as members, worked with First Nations, the government and mining giant BHP on best practices."The current laws remain inadequate, which is why we need investors and corporates themselves to step up," the association's co-CEO, Estelle Parker, said.Among its recommendations, the association urges miners to adhere to free, prior and informed consent that can be withdrawn at any time.The guide is "ambitious and probably unrealistic", law firm Ashurst said in a 2024 report, but it advised miners to get familiar with it."Be aware that change will come to Federal heritage laws. When it does, it will be closer to the expectations expressed in these recent publications than the current legal framework."($1 = 1.4601 Australian dollars)(Reporting by Melanie Burton; Editing by Sonali Paul)Copyright 2024 Thomson Reuters.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.